2020/12/4 6:08:13 -0800, er...@openjdk.java.net: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:30:02 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote: >>> And I can certainly move jdwp.spec to java.base instead. That's the >>> reason I need input on this: All I know is that is definitely not >>> the responsibility of the Build Group to maintain that document, and >>> I made my best guess at where to place it. >> >>> And I can certainly move jdwp.spec to java.base instead. >> >> If jdwp.spec has to move to the src tree then src/java.se is probably >> the most suitable home because Java SE specifies JDWP as an optional >> interface. So nothing to do with java.base and the build will need to >> continue to generate the sources for the front-end (jdk.jdi) and >> back-end (jdk.jdwp.agent) as they implement the protocol. > > My understanding of JEPs is that they should be viewed as living > documents. In this case, I think it's perfectly valid to update JEP > 201 with additional source code layout. Both for this and for the > other missing dirs.
Feature JEPs are living documents until such time as they are delivered. In this case it would not be appropriate to update JEP 201, which is as much about the transition from the old source-code layout as it is about the new layout as of 2014. At this point, and given that we’d already gone beyond JEP 201 prior to this change (with `man` and `lib` subdirectories), what’d make the most sense is a new informational JEP that documents the source-code layout. Informational JEPs can, within reason, be updated over time. - Mark
