Producing community binaries for OpenJDK

Wed Apr 5 11:01:35 UTC 2017

Hi all,

This is starting now for those of you who can join us - will post rough
minutes afterwards.

Cheers,
Martijn

On 4 April 2017 at 12:23, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There will be a Google hangout
> <https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/dnxdlutzf5echdtf456c6mxglae> tomorrow
> at 1200 UK time (GMT+1) for those who want a more detailed status update
> and a walkthrough on how some of the technical details work.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 30 March 2017 at 20:35, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In terms of overall progress we now have builds running on several
>> platforms: Linux x64, zLinux, PPC Linux, Windows, MacOS X and hopefully
>> soon Solaris.
>>
>> We'd like to get the jtreg testsuite with jcov working before showing
>> this to a wider audience (we think that minimum level of test coverage is
>> important).  A personal next step goal for me would then be to integrate
>> the other various OpenJDK build efforts that are out there today (IcedTea,
>> David Lloyd's Git clones of forests, Henri Gomez's work and many more).
>>
>> All of the work is happening on GitHub (http://www.github.com/adoptop
>> enjdk) - feel free to ask any questions here, or submit issues over
>> there :-).
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 30 March 2017 at 20:30, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've opened up https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-build/issues/16
>>> to investigate this potential IP flow issue.  I'll stress that it may *not*
>>> actually end up being a goal to donate code to the OpenJDK project.  But if
>>> we can put a mechanism in place to ensure clean IP flow in case we do
>>> choose to donate the code, then that's worth looking into and it's better
>>> to do it earlier rather than later.
>>>
>>> I briefly toyed with the idea of proposing an openjdk project for this,
>>> but the OpenJDK project does simply not have the infrastructure in place to
>>> rapidly prototype the sort of common build infra and processes we're
>>> exploring.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 16:22, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's not at all what I mean, and well you know it.
>>>>
>>>> The industry has a clear, obvious example of a major corporation of
>>>> the same standing as Oracle (namely Microsoft) using a contribution
>>>> model which is quite literally:
>>>>
>>>> 1) I certify that I have the rights to contribute this code
>>>>
>>>> 2) I certify that I want to contribute this code under the given
>>>> license & accept the terms.
>>>>
>>>> How much more "real world" an example would you like?
>>>>
>>>> Now, if your stated reason was: "Oracle's lawyers do not believe that
>>>> the IP regime adopted by Microsoft is sound & do not wish to expose
>>>> themselves to liabilities that they believe exist with that model"
>>>> then that would be one thing.
>>>>
>>>> But please don't pretend that alternative models "make no sene in the
>>>> real world".
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:13 PM, dalibor topic <
>>>> dalibor.topic at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 29.03.2017 16:51, Ben Evans wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Microsoft have a simple click-through arrangement, on Github, where I
>>>> >> certify I have the right to make the contribution and that I agree to
>>>> >> the relevant licensing terms. The first time I make a PR, I am
>>>> >> prompted to perform the clickthrough, and then it goes away.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Why is the situation with OpenJDK any different at all to that?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > OpenJDK does not use GitHub. It's not owned by Microsoft. It uses the
>>>> OCA.
>>>> > You can find out more about it here: http://openjdk.java.net/contri
>>>> bute/ .
>>>> >
>>>> > If what you're asking here is why one can't just contribute other
>>>> people's
>>>> > random code off GitHub to OpenJDK, that's because one can only
>>>> contribute
>>>> > what's one's own. Other people's code is not.
>>>> >
>>>> > If there is a doubt whether something is one's own or not, it's much
>>>> better
>>>> > and simpler for OpenJDK developers to err on the side of caution, and
>>>> > neither encourage nor accept such contributions at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > And that's ultimately why all the occasionally occurring ideas about
>>>> > alternative contribution flows are doomed from the start. They make
>>>> no sense
>>>> > in the real world.
>>>> >
>>>> > cheers,
>>>> > dalibor topic
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Ben
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM, dalibor topic <
>>>> dalibor.topic at oracle.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 29.03.2017 10:59, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     As long as we're talking about flow of ideas, that might make
>>>> sense.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     If the expectation is that patches and build infra code would
>>>> get
>>>> >>>>     promoted
>>>> >>>>     into OpenJDK, I think that's very unlikely, as OpenJDK
>>>> requires an
>>>> >>>>     OCA for contributions, while GitHub does not. So over time,
>>>> the cost
>>>> >>>>     of untangling who did what in some random GitHub repo in order
>>>> to
>>>> >>>>     arrive at something that can be contributed tends to
>>>> overshadow any
>>>> >>>>     benefit from such accumulations of code.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Sure, that's actually a cycle I want to introduce (some sort of
>>>> CLA) but
>>>> >>>> appreciate the IP flow here.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There is no need for any cycles.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> OpenJDK Projects can not take random code from GitHub (or any other
>>>> >>> place).
>>>> >>> Regardless of the arrangement you arrive at for managing some GitHub
>>>> >>> repo.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As soon as you start having more than one contributor, you end up
>>>> with
>>>> >>> something none of them can go ahead and just contribute on their
>>>> own. At
>>>> >>> that point the conversation about contributions becomes
>>>> exponentially
>>>> >>> more
>>>> >>> complicated, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it's not
>>>> worth
>>>> >>> spending the time or effort on.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Which we might do if this thing has legs, but it has a long way to
>>>> go to
>>>> >>>> see if it's useful or desirable yet.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sure, but in that case you should not really expect to see any of
>>>> that
>>>> >>> code
>>>> >>> make its way back into OpenJDK. For example, you most likely won't
>>>> be
>>>> >>> able
>>>> >>> to take any such code back into OpenJDK once you do decide to start
>>>> a new
>>>> >>> Project.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Basically, once you have a PoC of some random idea for the JDK
>>>> developed
>>>> >>> outside OpenJDK, you might have just enough code to prove some idea
>>>> >>> works,
>>>> >>> but you may have too much code and history for it to be worth
>>>> putting any
>>>> >>> work into turning it into something that can be contributed back to
>>>> >>> OpenJDK,
>>>> >>> if you have more than one contributor.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So one can assume that such externally, 'socially' developed code
>>>> will be
>>>> >>> in
>>>> >>> the vast majority of cases undesirable for OpenJDK, regardless of
>>>> its
>>>> >>> utility. That means the best potential outcome for its authors is to
>>>> >>> produce
>>>> >>> something useful but undesirable.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> cheers,
>>>> >>> dalibor topic
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
>>>> >>> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
>>>> >>> <tel:+491737185961>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 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, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
>>>> developing
>>>> >>> practices and products that help protect the environment
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
>>>> > Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
>>>> > <tel:+491737185961>
>>>> >
>>>> > 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, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
>>>> >
>>>> > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
>>>> > practices and products that help protect the environment
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>