As Kevin already said, you won't get anywhere by discussing that on
*this* list.
It is out of the control of JavaFX. It is an OpenJDK-wide policy
regarding the bug tracker.
You would need to take it to openjdk-discuss since it is common across
all OpenJDK projects.
And there is some work in progress the submission easier and to provide
means to
add updates. I think that may have been shared in a previous thread on
this or some other list.
-phil.
On 12/3/2015 10:31 AM, Markus KARG wrote:
+1
It simply must be possibly for *everyone* to open tickets, comment on tickets, vote for
tickets, without signing a CLA. We simply could have bylaws that say that you agree to
the CLA simply by using the tracker. In Germany for example, this is possible by posting
the licence agreement on the same web site and the words "By using this service you
agree to this terms.".
The must be people in charge reviewing small contributions and directly tell in
the comments field what exactly is needed to be accepted as a contribution.
Everything else will hold people back from contributing small contributions or
even report bugs.
-Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of
Mark Fortner
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015 00:12
To: Florian Brunner
Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX
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
