[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject: Re: OpenJFX mirror at BitBucket?
From: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth () oracle ! com>
Date: 2015-03-18 18:38:55
Message-ID: 5509C63F.3050409 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
I will change the Wiki then. I wasn't even aware that this was on the
Wiki, and we never have worked out what it would mean to accept a
contribution via a pull request.
-- Kevin
Anirvan Sarkar wrote:
> Looks like the page
> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/OpenJFX/Developer+Work+Flow is
> outdated.
>
> It links to the BitBucket repo and mentions that one of the ways to provide
> a patch is to create a pull request on BitBucket.
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 05:51, Jonathan Giles <jonathan.giles@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Correct.
>> -- Jonathan
>>
>> On 18 March 2015 13:19:21 GMT+13:00, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But we still need this one-way mirror, from which users can fork,
>>> right? My assumption is that bitbucket will not keep track of how much
>>> you diverged from the OpenJDK repo you initially cloned. It will,
>>> however, tell you how much you diverged from a bitbucket repo that you
>>> forked.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Giles
>>> <jonathan.giles@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BitBucket supports generation of patches from pull requests. My
>>>>
>>> suggestion
>>>
>>>> was that community members who wanted to use BitBucket to collaborate
>>>>
>>> and /
>>>
>>>> or easily keep their work current with the repo could do so, and when
>>>>
>>> they
>>>
>>>> create their pull request, they can have bitbucket generate the patch
>>>>
>>> file
>>>
>>>> for submission 'the old fashioned way'.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> On 18/03/2015 1:03 p.m., Tomas Mikula wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Legal issues could be resolved by requiring a signed OCA before each
>>>>> pull request is merged. But anyway, if OpenJDK project does not
>>>>>
>>> accept
>>>
>>>>> pull requests, who is going to create the patches? If patches are
>>>>> painful for individual developers, they are going to be super
>>>>>
>>> painful
>>>
>>>>> for the person who is supposed to get the accepted PRs back to
>>>>> OpenJDK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, one-way mirrors should be easy enough to maintain by anyone
>>>>>
>>> who
>>>
>>>>> has access to a server where they can set up a cron task to
>>>>> periodically pull from OpenJDK repos and push to bitbucket repos.
>>>>> Whoever forks the mirror and makes changes would still have to
>>>>>
>>> submit
>>>
>>>>> patches directly to OpenJDK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tomas
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Giles
>>>>> <jonathan.giles@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no issue with members of the community using BitBucket to
>>>>>> develop
>>>>>> their patches. I just don't think it is a wise use of our limited
>>>>>>
>>> time to
>>>
>>>>>> maintain a mirror. This seems something that interested community
>>>>>>
>>> members
>>>
>>>>>> can do if they want. The main issue is as Kevin mentioned - someone
>>>>>>
>>> has
>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> submit the patch officially, and that someone has to have signed an
>>>>>>
>>> OCA
>>>
>>>>>> stating that they are owners of the code and IP being submitted. It
>>>>>>
>>> would
>>>
>>>>>> pay to very carefully track who has contributed code to a certain
>>>>>>
>>> patch
>>>
>>>>>> file, as all contributors will need to have signed an OCA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/03/2015 11:12 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be possible for the OpenJFX team to officially
>>>>>>>
>>> maintain a
>>>
>>>>>>> mirror at
>>>>>>> BitBucket themselves and use the same criteria for accepting a
>>>>>>> pull-request as
>>>>>>> for accepting a patch-file? Then you're sure that you can
>>>>>>>
>>> synchronize it
>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the main repositories without any legal or quality issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The contributors could link their forks and pull-requests in JIRA
>>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>>>>> documentation purposes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would really be great if we could move on with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Florian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 17. März 2015, 15.02:01 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. If you wanted to revive the unofficial OpenJFX bitbucket
>>>>>>>>
>>> mirror
>>>
>>>>>>>> for your own experiments, that is certainly something you could
>>>>>>>>
>>> do
>>>
>>>>>>>> (subject to the GPLv2 + CLASSPATH license terms).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those patches to then be incorporated into the openjfx repos
>>>>>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>>>>>> hg.openjdk.java.net they need to go through the existing openjdk
>>>>>>>> mechanism (which requires a signed OCA) as patches / webrevs,
>>>>>>>>
>>> just like
>>>
>>>>>>>> any other openjdk project. We cannot take patches directly from a
>>>>>>>> BitBucket repo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was a mirror, but it was unofficial and one-way (OpenJDK
>>>>>>>>>
>>> ->
>>>
>>>>>>>>> BitBucket). I believe (although my memory may be failing me)
>>>>>>>>>
>>> that it
>>>
>>>>>>>>> was operated by Danno, so he might have more to say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In regards to fork / pull-request vs patch-file, I have no
>>>>>>>>>
>>> arguments
>>>
>>>>>>>>> there. Of course, OpenJFX is part of the OpenJDK, and therefore
>>>>>>>>>
>>> makes
>>>
>>>>>>>>> use of the OpenJDK infrastructure. My main point is that any
>>>>>>>>>
>>> movement
>>>
>>>>>>>>> regarding infrastructure is guided by an over-arching
>>>>>>>>>
>>> infrastructure
>>>
>>>>>>>>> team, in conjunction with the OpenJDK masters. OpenJFX can't
>>>>>>>>>
>>> work
>>>
>>>>>>>>> independent of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2015 10:50 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is/ was a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the URL was https://bitbucket.org/openjfxmirrors, but
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> it's
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not valid
>>>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there still a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A fork/pull-request workflow is state-of-the-art nowadays in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> software
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> development and way better than a patch-file based workflow
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> IMHO.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be great to have such a fork/pull-request workflow
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> also for
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OpenJFX!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Florian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic