8251551: Use .md filename extension for README

[gdams]

Backports https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8251551 as it's a low-risk change and generally improves the readability/usability in GitHub.

Currently, I've just converted the README to markdown format and added a little syntax highlighting. I'm not sure if people would like me to go one step further and rip out the mercurial/nested repo references?

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed (2 reviews required, with at least 2 Reviewers)

Issue

• JDK-8251551: Use .md filename extension for README

Reviewers

• Paul Hohensee (@phohensee - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev pull/75/head:pull/75
$ git checkout pull/75

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/75
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev pull/75/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 75

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 75

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/75.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back gdams! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (c18108be)

[phohensee]

Lgtm.

[openjdk]

@gdams This change is no longer ready for integration - check the PR body for details.

[gdams]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@gdams
Your change (at version c18108b) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[gdams]

@phohensee can you please ask for integration permission by tagging the JBS issue?

[gnu-andrew]

I think we need to bring in the changes to convert to markdown first (notably JDK-8139668 and JDK-8176509) before doing this.

Also, this patch looks to be removing the old file and adding a new one, when it should be a rename. That makes it hard to see what has actually changed.

[gdams]

I think we need to bring in the changes to convert to markdown first (notably JDK-8139668 and JDK-8176509) before doing this.

I hadn't seen those patches before, are they not focussed on the README-builds.html file rather than the top-level README file? I'm not sure why one would block the other.

Also, this patch looks to be removing the old file and adding a new one, when it should be a rename. That makes it hard to see what has actually changed.

That's the way the patch was applied from the top (see the original commit). I wouldn't like to change that now as it would be inconsistent with the other repos?

[gnu-andrew]

I think we need to bring in the changes to convert to markdown first (notably JDK-8139668 and JDK-8176509) before doing this.

I hadn't seen those patches before, are they not focussed on the README-builds.html file rather than the top-level README file? I'm not sure why one would block the other.

8176509 also updates README and would essentially making this patch a clean backport as far as I can see. If we apply this change first as it is, we'll introduce changes unique to 8u into the README file. 8139668 is a prerequisite for 8176509.

Also, this patch looks to be removing the old file and adding a new one, when it should be a rename. That makes it hard to see what has actually changed.

That's the way the patch was applied from the top (see the original commit). I wouldn't like to change that now as it would be inconsistent with the other repos?

Ugh, I see. Well, we're already inconsistent with other repos with this patch, because the file being changed is quite different. Not having this as a rename makes it hard to see what changes have been made other than the rename.

I can accept the patch as it is in trunk and 11u if we're doing the same change on top of JDK-8176509. If we're going to do unique 8u changes, we should do the rename properly.

[gnu-andrew]

I've opened #79 for the first of these. Once both are in, you should be able to just do this change cleanly.

[mlbridge]

Mailing list message from Thorsten Glaser on jdk8u-dev:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022, Andrew John Hughes wrote:

Not having this as a rename makes it hard to see what changes have
been made other than the rename.

In git, merely the content is stored. The decision of whether to
render a change as diff or removal+addition (or copy+diff) lies
with the client invoking the diff (log -p, ?) command and is done
every time anew.

You might have luck using git diff -M40% or even smaller numbers.

HTH & HAND,
//mirabilos

PS: This is one of the reasons git is not a version control system.
Torvalds himself calls it a ?stupid content tracker?.
--
Infrastrukturexperte ? tarent solutions GmbH
Am Dickobskreuz 10, D-53121 Bonn ? https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.tarent.de/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PJdFeXULUrQ0KWYVpN2vPkrH8ux0JTIQhQ3s4kJOlopQWTlHHRpZRNmBLNI20PvO-uvll9VNdMbJj8RYy09vgq8$
Telephon +49 228 54881-393 ? Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB AG Bonn 5168 ? USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

****************************************************
/?\ The UTF-8 Ribbon
??? Campaign against Mit dem tarent-Newsletter nichts mehr verpassen:
??? HTML eMail! Also, https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tarent.de/newsletter__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PJdFeXULUrQ0KWYVpN2vPkrH8ux0JTIQhQ3s4kJOlopQWTlHHRpZRNmBLNI20PvO-uvll9VNdMbJj8RYqpN61Wo$
??? header encryption!
****************************************************

[bridgekeeper]

@gdams This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[gdams]

Adding a comment to prevent this from closing. @gnu-andrew is your other patch ready yet?

[gnu-andrew]

Still waiting on a review of my patch, sorry. It'd be good if someone could review it so we can start to move this forward.

[gnu-andrew]

/reviewers 2 reviewer

[openjdk]

@gnu-andrew
The total number of required reviews for this PR (including the jcheck configuration and the last /reviewers command) is now set to 2 (with at least 2 Reviewers).

[phohensee]

Andrew, I reviewed #79.

[bridgekeeper]

@gdams This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[bridgekeeper]

@gdams This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.