Correct. -- Jonathan
On 18 March 2015 13:19:21 GMT+13:00, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@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.gi...@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.gi...@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 >>>> >>>> >>
