I think the first hurdle is to get people to sign the CLA. Having to print a copy, sign it, and find a fax machine or scanner to resend it seems kind of archaic in this day and age. That said, e-signing a PDF shouldn't be too difficult, but it would be better if it were simply a form that you attached your public key to. This would serve 2 purposes: (1) you have a proxy for a signature, (2) the key could be used to access the repo.
That said, even that might be too much for people who just have a quick bug fix that they'd like to see reviewed and merged. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Florian Brunner <fbrunnerl...@gmx.ch> wrote: > Some time ago there actaully was a OpenJFX mirror repository on BitBucket. > > I'm not totally sure anymore why this was stopped. I think it needs someone > who keeps the repositories in sync and there were some concerns that it's > harder to control who wrote a patch. But maybe the idea with CLA signers > only > members would solve this issue? > > So I see 3 pain points being raised. > > 1. Signing the CLA. > - Personally, I don't see any way around this. If there is no CLA > then you > end up with a project _nobody_ is in control of. > - Basically it envolves the following steps: > -- Download it from the website > -- print it > -- sign it > -- send it off > -- you only have to do this once > -- you don't have to wait for Oracle to receive it to start > working > on the issue you like to solve > > Can this be presented in a way it doesn't scare people away as > according to > some statements it seems to do now? > > 2. State-of-the-art code collaboration platform. > -- This would have to be something like GitHub or BitBucket > -- Only CLA signers can be members of the project > -- Someone has to be in charge to synchronize the repositories > (probably one way only) > -- personally I like to work with feature branches in Git but I > think > you can get something similar with Mercurial bookmarks. So > --- pick an issue you would like to work on > --- consider to announce it on this mailing list > --- create a feature branch > --- start pushing your changes to the feature branch > --- other developers of the projects (all CLA signers) might chime > in > as they like > --- once you think you're finished create a patch from the feature > branch and add it to the issue or (if you don't have enough rights) send > it to > the mailing list > --- take the feedback from the review, do the fixes an create > another > patch etc. > > So the main benefit would be that several developers could work on the same > issue until it gets to a high enough qualiy state to be merged into the > main > repository and not requiring one developer to do it all on his/ her own. > > > 3. Filing and commenting on issues > - if you don't have enough rights, file it on bugs.java.com > - ask on this mailing list (or ask someone you know on this mailing list > to > do it for you) about the corresponding issue on bugs.openjdk.java.net > - someone from Oracle should give anyone who filed an issue that made it > to > bugs.openjdk.java.net the enough rights so he/ she can join on the > discussion > in the issue > > Any better way? > > > -Florian > > Am Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015, 17.16:46 schrieb Tomas Mikula: > > The proposed strategy also applies to bitbucket, which does have > mercurial > > support ;) > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Markus KARG <mar...@headcrashing.eu> > wrote: > > > Too bad that Github cannot fork mercurial repos. It would be > interesting > > > to see the real number of pull requests such a fork would gain. Maybe > > > Dalibor is right and we would end up with zero? ;-) > > > > > > -Markus > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Tomas Mikula [mailto:tomas.mik...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 23:05 > > > To: Markus KARG > > > Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > > > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > > > > > > > > > > > > The review process for external contributions does not even have to be > > > different from the internal review process. There can be a virtual > > > organization on GitHub called "Oracle CLA signatories". After a pull > > > request has been reviewed, all that the OpenJFX committer has to do > before > > > merging is to check whether the contributor is a member of this > > > organization. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Markus KARG <mar...@headcrashing.eu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > We should ask ourselfs whether we want more contributions or not. We > will > > > not get them until we change something. Most contributors in the Open > > > Source just want to drop a bug report or a feature or two, and > multiplied > > > by the number of those guys, this is a lot of stuff. Only few > contributors > > > are willing to stay for long time, and only for those it makes sense to > > > have the complex rules. For example, I do not see why we cannot have a > > > dedicated full time "Community Officer" who simply collects the > > > contributions, reviews it, applies the needed checks and rules and all > > > that > > > instead of asking everybody to follow a complex process? That would > ensure > > > the quality, but not for the cost of losing contributors. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hervé Girod [mailto:herve.gi...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 20:19 > > > To: Markus KARG > > > Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > > > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > > > > > > Things are not different for Apache projects. Google does not accept > any > > > external contributions. The Linux kernel development is very tightly > > > controlled. We should stop considering that widespread open source > > > policies > > > are only a problem with JavaFX. These policies are in place for a > reason. > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 20:13, Markus KARG <mar...@headcrashing.eu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I wonder why I was able to jointly assign my copyright with a lot of > > > > > > other > > > > > > > open source projects without having to sign papers, sent them in by > fax, > > > > wait for a written agreement, and pray to get a JIRA account... ;-) > > > > > > > > See, I talked to a real lot of former JavaFX contributors in the past > > > > > > weeks > > > > > > > (visited some European JUGs in 2015), and *virtually everybody* told > me > > > > > > that > > > > > > > he is really unsatisfied with the fact that he cannot directly file > to > > > > > > JIRA > > > > > > > anymore or AT LEAST vote and comment on existing tickets. Is the > JavaFX > > > > > > team > > > > > > > clear about how many contributors you lost by that policy? I really > > > > > > wonder > > > > > > > whether you see the reality there outside of Oracle. People stopped > > > > reporting bugs! This is a real problem for JavaFX. You should act. > Now. > > > > > > > > -Markus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On > > > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > > > dalibor topic > > > > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 19:06 > > > > To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > > > > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > > > > > > > >> On 01.12.2015 18:35, Markus KARG wrote: > > > >> With respect to TeamFX, the better question is: Are there plans to > > > > > > further > > > > > > >> open the project so third party has an easier channel to contribute > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > >> the hazzle of contributor agreements > > > > > > > > "Like many other open-source communities, the OpenJDK Community > requires > > > > Contributors to jointly assign their copyright on contributed code." > as > > > > http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ wisely says. > > > > > > > > There is no good reason to change that. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > dalibor topic > > > > -- > > > > <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > > > > Phone: +494089091214 <tel:%2B494089091214> <tel:+494089091214 > > > > > > <tel:%2B494089091214> > | Mobile: +491737185961 <tel:%2B491737185961> > > > > > > > <tel:+491737185961 <tel:%2B491737185961> > > > > > > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > > > > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > > > > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München > > > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 > > > > > > > > Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > > > > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > > > > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > > > > Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher > > > > > > > > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing > > > > practices and products that help protect the environment > >
