aarch32 project process

[Andrey Petushkov]

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your letter! IMHO this all makes perfect sense and hope it
helps us moving forward quicker.
With this respect may I ask you to promote Sergey Nazarkin (snazarki) into
committer role for the project. Although there are other people from Azul
being listed as commiters, they are really busy with other stuff, so it
would be nice to have at least one person who's really involved in the
project. At the same time I believe Sergey has enough contributions to
formally match the criteria.

Best Regards,
Andrey

PS. Alex, so we're counting on you, as you seem to be the only other
non-Azul person who's active on this project :)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:17 PM Edward Nevill <edward.nevill at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to discuss the aarch32 project process. IE. the process for
> submitting patches for aarch32 and having those patches approved and
> pushed.
>
> It would seem that I have become a defacto 'gatekeeper' and this was not
> my intention. There are currently 6 committers on the project, however I
> seem to be the only committer pushing patches.
>
> Unfortunately, I have been quite busy at work at the moment and as this
> work is not sponsored by my employer, I have to try to find 'spare' time
> to do it. I expect that I will have more time available for this work
> after June 14.
>
> In order that my tardiness does not delay anyone I would like to propose
> the following.
>
> - Since we have no formal Reviewers on the project any patch may be
> approved by any other committer. I think it would be preferable that the
> other committer does not work for the same company.
>
> - Any committer can then push a patch once it has been approved as
> above. It would be good practice to allow 24 hours before pushing a
> patch after it has been proposed in order to allow sufficient time to
> review the patches.
>
> - It greatly eases the process of reviewing/pushing patches if the
> patches are submitted using the 'webrev' tool (see
> http://openjdk.java.net/guide/webrevHelp.html) and if the patch is
> committed before running webrev. In this case the patch becomes a
> changeset, in which case the reviewer/committer can simply do "hg import
> <patch>" followed by "hg push". However, I understand that it is
> sometimes not possible for contributors to create changesets if they do
> not have OpenJDK IDs.
>
> - At the moment we are creating OpenJDK bugids for every change. This
> has some value in that it is possible to look at a change, refer back to
> the original bug report to see what the actual problem was. Also, if the
> bug ID is mentioned in the header of the email to the list it makes it
> easy to trace any discussion regarding the change. For this reason I
> would like to keep the policy of having OpenJDK bugids, but I do
> understand that it is an extra administrative overhead and am open to
> persuasion.
>
> At the moment the list of committers are
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#adinn
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#aph
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#bae
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#jjoyce
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#vkarnauk
> http://openjdk.java.net/census#enevill
>
> If there is a need for additional committers I am quite happy to propose
> additional committers. Ideally any proposed committers should already
> have OpenJDK ids and should have contributed some patches to OpenJDK (I
> think the magic number is 8, but there is some flexibility with this,
> especially for non trunk projects such as the aarch32 port).
>
> In the meantime I will try to get to reviewing the outstanding patches
> ASAP.
>
> All the best,
> Ed.
>
>
>