Re: Subject: CFV: New JDK 10 Committer: Erik Österlund (original) (raw)

Roman Kennke roman at kennke.org
Thu Jun 22 12:49:20 UTC 2017

As far as I understand it, the rules have been designed to give some confidence that the author is expected to take some responsibilty to the stuff he's doing plus provide some basic confidence that the author is competent to handle OpenJDK dev work.

I don't really have an overview of Erik's track record. I do work with him on GC interface stuff though, and I am currently looking at some of his work that is not in OpenJDK yet, which is a pretty large change, and all I can say is that this gives me the confidences I have mentioned above.

I'm all for less bureaucrazy and more pragmatism and am hereby voting: yes

But I don't see it as a bad idea to wait until his above mentioned big GC interface stuff is in JDK10 if that gives other people involved more confidence.

Cheers, Roman

There are no strict definition of what constitutes significant change, leaving it open for interpretation. There are plenty of Committers who've been happily accepted after doing a handful of test fixes, but seemingly not everyone is measured with the same ruler.

No rule change needed, but a social shift is long overdue. /Claes On 2017-06-22 14:13, Thomas Schatzl wrote: Hi,

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 14:04 +0200, Claes Redestad wrote: On 2017-06-22 11:26, Thomas Schatzl wrote: Vote: veto

Thanks for sending a clear message that there's no place for pragmatism in our organization! /s these are OpenJDK rules, not company rules afaik. Let's change the rules then. Thanks, Thomas

More information about the jdk10-dev mailing list