If there are those of us who wanted to maintain a fork of Java 17,
focused on security, we could backport new features after they've been
reviewed for security.
Would we be welcomed to do that here? Otherwise is it something we
should do on GitHub?
Cheers,
Peter.
On 21/05/2021 11:25 am, David Black wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 21:27, Andrew Dinn <ad...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2021 23:06, David Black wrote:
I don't think that this thinking is unique but it might not be worth
the "cost" to Oracle to maintain something that seemingly for various
reasons Oracle has little interest in maintaining (we're not in
applet-land anymore). I would like to encourage proposals that mean
that people who want to do 4, who implement further security hardening
where others seemingly shy away, can continue to do 4.
Please don't do that. The cost Ron is talking about is not to "Oracle".
It is a cost to the OpenJDK project as a whole.
Sorry about that, that is a good point.
Likewise, the lack of project team interest in maintaining the security
manager and self-evident interest in applying resources to providing
other, more valuable Java capabilities is not simply restricted to
"Oracle" project members.
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Red Hat Distinguished Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill
--
Regards,
Peter Firmstone
0498 286 363
Zeus Project Services Pty Ltd.
