Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

2023-04-24 - Java 17

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Current »

Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll
*

Java 17 RFC


Notes:

  • Do we need subgroup, or just go on to public review phase?
    • Craig McNally We don't have much of a middle ground between TC discussion vs. RFC, except AD.  Should capture decision in the log.  Do we have to loop in others?
    • Jeremy Huff How would we apply to existing modules?
    • Maccabee Levine Let's just to the RFC process "swiftly".  Get to public review immediately.
    • Craig McNally Useful exercise to see how that works?
    • Jeremy Huff We already had lazy consensus on Preliminary Review on Wednesday.  Public Review does need time for input.
    • Craig McNally We've rarely/never? done the "Post Review" process of helping us improve the process.
    • Jeremy Huff Grace period needed?  Subgroup maybe needed to hammer out those details.  Better for culture of project.
      • Julian Ladisch Backend modules are separate, so individual modules could still work as J11.  Teams can share any difficulties during Public Review.
      • Craig McNally Give it maybe a week?
      • Consensus yes, one week.  Keep to our own deadline.
  • Jeremy Huff will lead subgroup and get it wrapped up quickly.  Julian Ladisch and Craig McNally participating.
  • Deliverables: 
    • Work with the submitter of the Java 17 RFC to refine and provide feedback.

Action Items

 

  • No labels