https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #34 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #32) > > It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This > > has the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways. > > Are they really out? I'm really afraid of leaving (again) behind. Can we > keep it in untill the review is finished, so all is done with it in mind? > If the shenandoah repo is still not accptable at that time, Then I will bow > and remove it. > Hmm? It's been suggested that http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk is the Shenandoah dev forest and we should not be using it. We should be using http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk11 once jdk/jdk11 has been forked. Either way, we'll be changing sources in an update: jdk/jdk => jdk/jdk11 or jdk/jdk => shenandoah/jdk11 We should just use jdk/jdk now for all arches and move to shenandoah/jdk11 once it exists. There shouldn't be any shenandoah specific things in the spec file as far as I understand it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/TK6TNMLAIW72RH4V6VHAC4I27YHEII37/
