Initial forests for JDK 9 (original) (raw)
Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Tue Dec 10 01:20:04 PST 2013
- Previous message: Initial forests for JDK 9
- Next message: Initial forests for JDK 9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2013-12-10 07:57, Iris Clark wrote:
One change I'd like to propose is modification of the destinations for push notifications.
For JDK 8, changes to the Master and all team forests are sent to jdk8-changes at ojn. Push notifications to team forests are also sent to various -dev mailing lists. In some cases notifications may be sent to multiple mailing lists. For instance, changes to the tl forest are sent to compiler-dev, core-libs-dev, serviceability-dev, security-dev, and net-dev. With the reduction in the number of team repos in JDK 9 particularly for client, the number of duplicate push notifications will increase. I recommend that each of the forests send push notifications to new mailing lists which use the following naming convention: jdk9-forest?-changes at ojn . Notifications for jdk9 would be sent to jdk9-changes, dev to jdk9-dev-changes, hotspot-rt to jdk9-hotspot-rt-changes, etc. Sounds very good to me! It's a constant struggle with less-capable mailing system to keep up reasonable filters to be able to separate hg notification from the proper discussions on the -dev mailing lists.
There are a couple of options for the set of initial subscribers:
1. All lists have an empty list of initial subscribers. We announce the existence of these lists and encourage people to subscribe as appropriate. 2. The set of initial subscribers for each list is initialized as the union of people currently subscribed to the -dev mailing lists that are used for JDK 8 notifications. For example, the initial subscribes of the jdk9-dev-changes would be the union of those e-mail addresses which receive mail from the {compiler,core-libs,serviceability,security,net}-dev lists. After the -changes lists have been created, anybody subscribing to a -dev list will need to consider whether they also wish to subscribe to a -changes list (i.e. automatic subscription to -changes will only occur only on creation).
As long as you can subscribe/unsubscribe at will, I don't think the default is so important. Option 1 is the cleanest, but option 2 might provide "backward compatilibity" with current praxis.
/Magnus
- Previous message: Initial forests for JDK 9
- Next message: Initial forests for JDK 9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]