On 06/28/2018 09:14 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956 >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/ >>> >>> Quick links to handier HTML diffs: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html >>> >>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1]. >>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun. >>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct, >>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,” >>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just >>> write “the JDK.” >>> >> >> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change! >> >> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this >> change is basically a NOP. > > +1 > > Also, "(open-source) JDK" is way too generic, and does awkwardly apply to > other JDK's in the wild, > including IBM's, Azul's, Excelsior's, etc. It stands to reason that > build/test instruction for > OpenJDK project use "OpenJDK" to describe what those instructions apply to. > It seems less confusing > to find the appropriate noun to go with "OpenJDK", e.g. "OpenJDK build", > "OpenJDK binary", "OpenJDK > workspace", etc?
I hate to be "that guy", but cannot help to notice the change was pushed [1] with comments above by Volker and myself ignored, and not even acknowledged. I hope this is not how reviews work in OpenJDK... JDK? work now. -Aleksey [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/7c728fa9d1af