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outdated.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.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
