2018/6/28 0:14:26 -0700, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@redhat.com>: > On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: >> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change! > > +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.
Agreed. That’s another reason not to use that term. > 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? Yes, we could do that, but why use even more words to describe what everyone knows is just “the JDK”? When we started the OpenJDK Community we intentionally chose not to use “OpenJDK” in the names of the Projects that produce JDK feature and update releases. That’d just be redundant: “The OpenJDK Project in the OpenJDK Community”? Similar reasoning applies here. The context of these instructions makes it clear that they’re for the source code to a JDK implementation that you found in the OpenJDK Community. There’s no need to insert “OpenJDK” everywhere. - Mark
