Re: [DISCUSS] Bringing jamm in-tree

[Mick]

> On 6 Jan 2026, at 18:12, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> While your solution is the easiest one, undeniably, of course, it
>> seems to disregard the existing user base. Some of them are other
>> Apache projects too. I think that we are beyond this and we want to
>> have it re-usable by other projects too.
> 
> Right now we're a pure consumer of the lib. If we brought it in-tree and 
> published artifacts from our source, we'd be becoming maintainers of the lib 
> which is a Big Change.
> 
> I don't think we're ready to sign up for that tbh and I'm weakly against it.
> 
> So that leaves a) copying code in-tree, or b) submodule.



Right, if we're not taking over jamm then we're not needing to maintain it as a 
separate code repo.  (I didn't realise this was the intention either.)

Aside from that, a git submodule does have a benefit due to how we can change 
the branch of it we use and how we need to do that we it comes time to 
back-porting jdk support to earlier versions.  I don't have an opinion here, 
it's just another point of consideration.