Initial forests for JDK 9 (original) (raw)

mark.reinhold at oracle.com mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Thu Dec 12 11:13:29 PST 2013

2013/12/12 2:12 -0800, stuart.marks at oracle.com:

I agree that everybody should be aware of changes to the master, but mixing changeset notifications and discussion makes it more difficult for people to control how they process mail. For example, I do a lot of filtering of OpenJDK mail based on the mailing list to which it was delivered (using the Delivered-To header). If notifications were mixed with discussion, I'd have to apply an additional filter based on the subject line. This fails with replies to changeset notices, for example.

Filtering out changeset notifications is easy -- just look for the X-Hg-URL (or X-Hg-Changeset) header.

Speaking of replies, should notifications set a reply-to header directing replies to a discussion list? Having discussion on a dedicated notification list would seem like a problem. (This applies to all the per-forest notification lists, not just master.)

Iris -- What's your plan for the Reply-To headers of changeset notifications?

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list