On 02/22/2011 08:41 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely "open",
but we can provide a kind of portal
(
Am 22.02.2011 13:14, schrieb Dr Andrew John Hughes:
On 00:00 Tue 22 Feb , Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> So I take it the previous democratic choice of Bugzilla may be
> ignored?
For now, patch submissions should continue to be submitted via bugzilla,
and discussed with the appropriate pro
On 00:00 Tue 22 Feb , Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>
> >> Kelly just wrote:
> >> >> It's not clear...and slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
> >> >
> >> > I think Andrew was referring to http://bugs.openjdk.java.net.
> > I was. I'm not sure what else the phrase "OpenJDK bug data
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>> It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely "open",
>>> but we can provide a kind of portal
>>> (I hate that word), or view (a b
>> Kelly just wrote:
>> >> It's not clear...and slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
>> >
>> > I think Andrew was referring to http://bugs.openjdk.java.net.
> I was. I'm not sure what else the phrase "OpenJDK bug database"
> would refer to.
There were several bug systems mentioned
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 18:08 Mon 21 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
snip
So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the
existing
pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
On 18:26 Mon 21 Feb , Brad Wetmore wrote:
>
> >>> Definitely. Making OpenJDK bug DB IDs usable in changesets would be
> >>> a good start (probably involves jcheck...)
> >>
> >> I'll have to punt on that, someone else is working on it, but the
> >> intent is to have a
> >> completely open bug
On 18:08 Mon 21 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
snip
>
> >
> > So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the
> > existing
> > pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
>
> It's not clear. The old Sun bugtraq syst
Definitely. Making OpenJDK bug DB IDs usable in changesets would be
a good start (probably involves jcheck...)
I'll have to punt on that, someone else is working on it, but the
intent is to have a
completely open bug tracking system that also allows us link it with
the internal Oracle
bug tra
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 18:29 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has bee
On 18:29 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
>
> >> But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
> >>
> >> It has been observed (for a long time now) tha
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
* The bug tracking system
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
* The bug tracking system needs to be completely open
* We need an open build
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
Funnily
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Excuse the long email, sometimes it can't be avoided.
>
I much prefer long e-mails, especially ones with good news like this,
to things happening behind closed doors :-)
> I've been asked to try and start up some discussions around how the
> Open
16 matches
Mail list logo