Looks like the page https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/OpenJFX/Developer+Work+Flow is outdated.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.gi...@oracle.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >> > -- Anirvan
