> > We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK > 11, but using a different release number will help track the actual content > of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
Iv'e just realized that not releasing JavaFX with version number 11 will cause confusion with all the '@since 11' tags. We could search for all '@since 11' and replace them with the new version number (maybe much to the confusion of users since it breaks continuity). - Nir On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth < kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the > OpenJFX project: > > 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net > [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers > match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be > the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync. > > 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build > will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3] > > 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with > jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX. > > 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in > JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to > distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 > around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will > help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11. > > 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the > discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more > responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 > weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the > JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine. > > If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please > reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions > into their own thread to make it easier to follow. > > -- Kevin > > [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/ > > [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/ > 021856.html > [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368 > >