From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Wed Mar 1 11:49:08 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:49:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: JDK 9 build 158 test results now available Message-ID: JDK 9 ea build 158 test results are now available at http://www.java.net/download/openjdk/testresults/9/testresults.html The jdk test results contain 30 differences from the build 156 test results. There is 1 testcase failure, this failure is under investigation. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/156/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,150; fail: 7; error: 1; not run: 2,245 1: /home/jtest/merge9/158/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,154; fail: 7; error: 1; not run: 2,253 0 1 Test --- pass com/sun/java/swing/plaf/windows/Test8173145.java pass fail com/sun/nio/sctp/SctpMultiChannel/SocketOptionTests.java --- pass java/lang/ClassLoader/securityManager/ClassLoaderTest.java pass --- java/lang/StackWalker/CountLocalSlots.java pass --- java/lang/StackWalker/LocalsCrash.java --- pass java/lang/StackWalker/ReflectionFrames.java --- pass java/lang/invoke/lambda/InheritedMethodTest.java --- pass java/lang/invoke/lambda/MetafactoryDescriptorTest.java --- pass java/lang/invoke/lambda/MetafactoryMethodNameTest.java pass --- java/lang/invoke/lambda/MetafactorySamReturnTest.java --- pass java/lang/invoke/modules/Driver.java pass --- java/lang/invoke/modules/ModuleAccessControlTest.java --- pass java/lang/reflect/AccessibleObject/CanAccessTest.java --- pass java/lang/reflect/AccessibleObject/TrySetAccessibleTest.java --- pass java/lang/reflect/Module/addXXX/Driver.java --- pass java/net/URL/JarHandlerPkgPrefix/JarHandlerPkgPrefix.java --- pass jdk/internal/reflect/CallerSensitive/CheckCSMs.java --- pass org/omg/CORBA/OrbPropertiesTest.java fail pass sun/management/jdp/JdpJmxRemoteDynamicPortTest.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/BadKdc1.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/BadKdc2.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/BadKdc3.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/BadKdc4.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/MaxRetries.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/TcpTimeout.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/UdpTcp.java --- pass sun/security/ssl/ServerHandshaker/HelloExtensionsTest.java pass --- sun/tools/jstat/jstatClassloadOutput1.sh --- pass tools/launcher/ArgsEnvVar.java --- pass tools/launcher/MainClassCantBeLoadedTest.java 30 differences The hotspot test results contain 11 differences from the build 156 test results. There is 1 testcase failure, this failure is under investigation. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/156/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,421; fail: 6; not run: 59 1: /home/jtest/merge9/158/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,426; fail: 1; error: 1; not run: 60 0 1 Test --- pass compiler/c1/TestUnresolvedFieldMain.java pass fail compiler/c2/Test6852078.java pass error compiler/jsr292/ContinuousCallSiteTargetChange.java fail pass runtime/ClassFile/FormatCheckingTest.java fail pass runtime/EnclosingMethodAttr/EnclMethodAttr.java fail pass runtime/classFileParserBug/ClassFileParserBug.java fail pass runtime/duplAttributes/DuplAttributesTest.java fail pass runtime/verifier/OverriderMsg.java fail pass runtime/verifier/TestANewArray.java pass --- serviceability/jvmti/ModuleAwareAgents/ClassFileLoadHook/MAAClassFileLoadHook.java --- pass serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java 11 differences The langtools test results contain 23 differences from the build 156 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/156/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,560; error: 1; not run: 303 1: /home/jtest/merge9/158/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,573; error: 4; not run: 310 0 1 Test --- pass com/sun/javadoc/testNonInlineHtmlTagRemoval/TestNonInlineHtmlTagRemoval.java --- pass tools/javac/T8173955/MessageForClassTest.java --- pass tools/javac/T8173955/MessageForEnumTest.java --- pass tools/javac/T8173955/MessageForInterfaceTest.java --- pass tools/javac/doclint/NPEDuplicateClassNamesTest.java --- pass tools/javac/generics/inference/8174249/T8174249a.java --- pass tools/javac/generics/inference/8174249/T8174249b.java --- pass tools/javac/lambda/MethodReferenceNoThisTest.java --- pass tools/javac/main/EnvVariableTest.java pass --- tools/javac/meth/BadPolySig.java --- pass tools/javac/meth/BadPolySig/BadPolySig.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/CompileModulePatchTest.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/MissingModuleTest.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/UnexpectedTokenInModuleInfoTest.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/WrongErrorMessageForNestedServiceProviderTest.java pass --- tools/javac/modules/XModuleTest.java --- pass tools/javac/processing/messager/6388543/T6388543.java --- pass tools/javac/processing/model/util/elements/TestAllFoos.java --- pass tools/javac/processing/model/util/printing/module-info.java pass error tools/javac/tree/JavacTreeScannerTest.java pass error tools/javac/tree/SourceTreeScannerTest.java pass error tools/javac/tree/TreePosTest.java --- pass tools/jdeps/modules/DotFileTest.java 23 differences The nashorn test result is available at http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/9/archives/158/emailable-report.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Fri Mar 3 05:21:41 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:21:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: JDK 9 build 159 test results now available Message-ID: <803e61ae-8022-4f8b-86e0-fae3c642a19b@default> JDK 9 ea build 159 test results are now available at http://www.java.net/download/openjdk/testresults/9/testresults.html The jdk test results contain 5 differences from the build 158 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/158/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,154; fail: 7; error: 1; not run: 2,253 1: /home/jtest/merge9/159/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,155; fail: 6; not run: 2,256 0 1 Test fail pass com/sun/nio/sctp/SctpMultiChannel/SocketOptionTests.java --- pass javax/xml/ws/clientjar/TestWsImport.java pass --- org/omg/CORBA/OrbPropertiesTest.java pass --- sun/management/HotspotRuntimeMBean/GetSafepointSyncTime.java error pass sun/tools/jstatd/TestJstatdExternalRegistry.java 5 differences The hotspot test results contain 11 differences from the build 158 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/158/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,426; fail: 1; error: 1; not run: 60 1: /home/jtest/merge9/159/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,437; error: 1; not run: 59 0 1 Test --- pass compiler/arraycopy/TestDefaultMethodArrayCloneDeoptC2.java fail pass compiler/c2/Test6852078.java --- pass compiler/c2/TestReplacedNodesOSR.java --- pass compiler/codecache/stress/ReturnBlobToWrongHeapTest.java --- pass compiler/jsr292/InvokerSignatureMismatch.java --- pass compiler/jvmci/compilerToVM/GetFlagValueTest.java --- pass compiler/jvmci/compilerToVM/IsMatureVsReprofileTest.java --- pass runtime/Metaspace/DefineClass.java --- pass runtime/classFileParserBug/AccModuleTest.java --- pass serviceability/sa/TestCpoolForInvokeDynamic.java --- pass serviceability/sa/TestPrintMdo.java 11 differences The langtools test results contain 3 differences from the build 158 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/158/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,573; error: 4; not run: 310 1: /home/jtest/merge9/159/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,576; error: 4; not run: 310 0 1 Test --- pass tools/javac/file/SetLocationForModule.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/SourceInSymlinkTest.java --- pass tools/javac/processing/model/util/types/TestPseudoTypeHandling.java 3 differences The nashorn test result is available at http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/9/archives/159/emailable-report.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From rory.odonnell at oracle.com Tue Mar 7 08:44:38 2017 From: rory.odonnell at oracle.com (Rory O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:44:38 +0000 Subject: JDK 9 EA Build 159 and JDK 8u152 is available on java.net Message-ID: <88b6207a-594a-fc88-882c-f73aa29634b4@oracle.com> Hi All, *JDK 8u152 **Early Access b01 *is available on java.net *JDK 9 Early Access* b159 is available on java.net, summary of changes are listed here . There have been a number of fixes to bugs reported by Open Source projects since the last availability email : * b159 - JDK-8175261 : Per-protocol cache setting not working for JAR URLConnection * b158 - JDK-8173028 : Incorrect processing of supplementary-plane characters in text fields * b158 - JDK-8172967 : [macosx] Exception while working with layout for text containing unmappable character * b158 - JDK-8173804 : javadoc throws UnsupportedOperationException: should not happen * b157 - JDK-8174073 : NPE caused by @link reference to class * b156 - JDK-8172726 : ForkJoin common pool retains a reference to the thread context class loader The following changeset is included in jdk-9+158: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/8b0d55e02f54 If you have a user-defined Policy implementation that grants FilePermission on ${user.dir}/-, reading a file in the current directory using its base name will fail. Still the same solution: Ensure that the path used in permission granting has the same style as the one how you access the file. Setting -Djdk.security.filePermCompat=true will take you back to the jdk-9+140 behavior. Setting -Djdk.io.permissionsUseCanonicalPath=true will take you back to the jdk8 behavior. Feedback is welcome on jdk9-dev at openjdk.java.net Other areas of interest * JDK 9 Developer Guide [1] * JDK 9 Migration Guide [2] * JDK Cryptographic Roadmap [3] Finaly, Dalibor and I gave a presentation at FOSDEM the video is available here [*4*] Rgds,Rory [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/javase-docs.htm [2] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/migrate/toc.htm#JSMIG-GUID-7744EF96-5899-4FB2-B34E-86D49B2E89B6 [3] https://www.java.com/en/jre-jdk-cryptoroadmap.html [4] https://fosdem.org/2017/schedule/event/outreach/ -- Rgds,Rory O'Donnell Quality Engineering Manager Oracle EMEA , Dublin, Ireland From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 17:43:34 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:43:34 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Tim, This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt would very much be interested in. I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do to help you? Thanks, Ben On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: > I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. > There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the > build process. > > It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the > fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it > looks like that has been quiet for a while? > > So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build > scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start > simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. > Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more > meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git > repo. > > The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and > producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, > so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and > patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are > relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build > specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working > binary. > > If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to > push the code there and continue working under that organization; but > understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. > > Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system > (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that > -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go > from there. > > Thoughts? > Tim > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to > openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From chuansheng.lcs at alibaba-inc.com Fri Mar 10 10:00:42 2017 From: chuansheng.lcs at alibaba-inc.com (=?UTF-8?B?6ZmG5Lyg6IOcKOS8oOiDnCk=?=) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:00:42 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFByb2R1Y2luZyBjb21tdW5pdHkgYmluYXJpZXMgZm9yIE9wZW5KREs=?= In-Reply-To: d27030d8-d9e5-497e-b9b3-3c67fcad20c5. References: , d27030d8-d9e5-497e-b9b3-3c67fcad20c5. Message-ID: <08592225-3c35-4758-a6ba-4cf6c3ff708f.chuansheng.lcs@alibaba-inc.com> Hi Tim, Glad to see an effort on this work!It is an interesting idea to have community binaries especially for OpenJDK participants. Here I just want to show you something I did earlier just for hobby, a simple open & free process to build OpenJDK:https://travis-ci.org/luchsh/ojdk_travis The scripts and dockerfiles are managed on "github.com", compilation environment was encapsulated in docker images on "hub.docker.com",and "travis-ci.org" provides machine resource to run the build. It worked well to build OpenJDK, visible to everyone and the effort/cost is trivial.So I guess for this proposal, we may leverage existing resource as much as possible. Regarding more meaningful testcases, and point-in-time patches, does that suggest this repositorywill have more testcases/content than OpenJDK codebase ? (maybe contributed from various organizations) ThanksJonathan Lu ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Ben Evans Send Time:2017?3?10?(???) 01:43To:Tim Ellison ; Martijn Verburg Cc:adopt-openjdk ; adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net ; openjdk-binary-gateway Subject:Re: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK Hi?Tim, This?sounds?good?to?me?-?and?I?think?it's?the?kind?of?thing?that?Adopt would?very?much?be?interested?in. I'm?looping?in?adoption-discuss,?AdoptOpenJDK?and?Martijn,?as?I'm?not sure?how?many?other?folk?are?reading?openjdk-binary. Adoption?folk?-?what?do?we?think??Does?this?fit?under?the?existing?structure? Tim?-?assuming?that?it?does,?what?practical?things?can?AdoptOpenJDK?do to?help?you? Thanks, Ben On?Thu,?Mar?9,?2017?at?4:15?PM,?Tim?Ellison??wrote: >?I've?now?got?some?cycles?for?actually?doing?some?build?work?around?OpenJDK. >?There?are?a?couple?of?colleagues?here?at?IBM?who?can?also?contribute?to?the >?build?process. > >?It?seems?that?the?closest?starting?point?for?community?build/test?is?the >?fine?work?that?was?done?as?part?of?the?Adopt?OpenJDK?project;?though?it >?looks?like?that?has?been?quiet?for?a?while? > >?So?we?have?started?"from?scratch"?this?week?and?are?writing?some?build >?scripts?we'd?like?to?move?into?the?open?and?share?with?folks.??It?will?start >?simple,?building?Linux?x86_64?and?rolling?out?to?Mac,?PPC,?and?Windows. >?Likewise?starting?with?some?JTReg?testing,?and?building?that?out?to?more >?meaningful?tests.??We?like?Git,?so?it's?currently?housed?in?a?private?Git >?repo. > >?The?goal?is?to?have?a?continuous?integration?system?pulling?from?OpenJDK?and >?producing?community?binaries?that?are?built?using?a?fully?open?build?system, >?so?everyone?can?validate?how?it?was?created,?and?the?dependencies?and >?patches?that?it?includes,?etc.??Of?course,?the?idea?is?that?changes?that?are >?relevant?to?OpenJDK?source?end?up?back?there;?but?there?will?always?be?build >?specific-files,?and?point-in-time?patches?required?to?produce?a?working >?binary. > >?If?there?is?enough?flexibility?at?the?Adopt?OpenJDK?project,?I'd?prefer?to >?push?the?code?there?and?continue?working?under?that?organization;?but >?understand?if?that?project?would?prefer?we?set?up?our?own?space?elsewhere. > >?Just?to?be?clear,?I'm?not?proposing?to?open?up?IBM's?Java?build?system >?(believe?me,?you?wouldn't?want?to?have?that!);?it's?much?simpler?than?that >?--?just?a?CI?clone/build/test/publish?cycle,?and?then?see?where?things?go >?from?there. > >?Thoughts? >?Tim >?Unless?stated?otherwise?above: >?IBM?United?Kingdom?Limited?-?Registered?in?England?and?Wales?with?number >?741598. >?Registered?office:?PO?Box?41,?North?Harbour,?Portsmouth,?Hampshire?PO6?3AU > >?-- >?You?received?this?message?because?you?are?subscribed?to?the?Google?Groups >?"OpenJDK?Binary?Gateway"?group. >?To?unsubscribe?from?this?group?and?stop?receiving?emails?from?it,?send?an >?email?to?openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >?To?post?to?this?group,?send?email?to >?openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >?To?view?this?discussion?on?the?web,?visit >?https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >?For?more?options,?visit?https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From sadhak001 at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 12:19:18 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:19:18 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <08592225-3c35-4758-a6ba-4cf6c3ff708f.chuansheng.lcs@alibaba-inc.com> References: <08592225-3c35-4758-a6ba-4cf6c3ff708f.chuansheng.lcs@alibaba-inc.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I second these efforts, very similar to the Cloudbees builds we at Adopt Openjdk have been maintaining. Cheers, Mani On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:01 ???(??), wrote: > Hi Tim, > Glad to see an effort on this work!It is an interesting idea to have > community binaries especially for OpenJDK participants. > Here I just want to show you something I did earlier just for hobby, a > simple open & free process to build OpenJDK: > https://travis-ci.org/luchsh/ojdk_travis > The scripts and dockerfiles are managed on "github.com", compilation > environment was encapsulated in docker images on "hub.docker.com",and " > travis-ci.org" provides machine resource to run the build. > It worked well to build OpenJDK, visible to everyone and the effort/cost > is trivial.So I guess for this proposal, we may leverage existing resource > as much as possible. > Regarding more meaningful testcases, and point-in-time patches, does that > suggest this repositorywill have more testcases/content than OpenJDK > codebase ? (maybe contributed from various organizations) > ThanksJonathan Lu > ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Ben > Evans Send Time:2017?3?10?(???) > 01:43To:Tim Ellison ; Martijn Verburg < > martijnverburg at gmail.com>Cc:adopt-openjdk ; > adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net ; > openjdk-binary-gateway Subject:Re: > Producing community binaries for OpenJDK > Hi Tim, > > This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt > would very much be interested in. > > I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not > sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > > > Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? > > Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do > to help you? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison > wrote: > > > I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. > > > There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the > > build process. > > > > It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the > > fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it > > looks like that has been quiet for a while? > > > > So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build > > > scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start > > simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. > > Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more > > meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git > > repo. > > > > > The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and > > > producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, > > so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and > > > patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are > > > relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build > > specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working > > binary. > > > > > If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to > > push the code there and continue working under that organization; but > > > understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. > > > > Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system > > > (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that > > -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go > > from there. > > > > Thoughts? > > Tim > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > > 741598. > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to > > openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web, visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From t.p.ellison at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 12:26:52 2017 From: t.p.ellison at gmail.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:26:52 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: > This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt > would very much be interested in. That's good to hear. > I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not > sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate once there is consensus on a home for this. > Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? > > Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do > to help you? Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk Regards, Tim > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >> build process. >> >> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >> >> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >> repo. >> >> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >> binary. >> >> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >> >> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >> from there. >> >> Thoughts? >> Tim >> Unless stated otherwise above: >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >> 741598. >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > From t.p.ellison at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 12:31:19 2017 From: t.p.ellison at gmail.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:31:19 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <08592225-3c35-4758-a6ba-4cf6c3ff708f.chuansheng.lcs@alibaba-inc.com> References: <08592225-3c35-4758-a6ba-4cf6c3ff708f.chuansheng.lcs@alibaba-inc.com> Message-ID: <86893dfd-933e-4745-ba27-afb8ba772b34@gmail.com> Hi Jonathan, Yep, your links are the type of thing I'm thinking. As you may have seen from the existing work by AdoptOpenJDK, there are a few more steps to building a 'usable' OpenJDK (getting the freetype font code, cacerts, etc), then running a few tests on it, and publishing the result -- but the overall approach is right. Regards, Tim On 10/03/17 10:00, ???(??) wrote: > Hi Tim, > Glad to see an effort on this work!It is an interesting idea to have community binaries especially for OpenJDK participants. > Here I just want to show you something I did earlier just for hobby, a simple open & free process to build OpenJDK:https://travis-ci.org/luchsh/ojdk_travis > The scripts and dockerfiles are managed on "github.com", compilation environment was encapsulated in docker images on "hub.docker.com",and "travis-ci.org" provides machine resource to run the build. > It worked well to build OpenJDK, visible to everyone and the effort/cost is trivial.So I guess for this proposal, we may leverage existing resource as much as possible. > Regarding more meaningful testcases, and point-in-time patches, does that suggest this repositorywill have more testcases/content than OpenJDK codebase ? (maybe contributed from various organizations) > ThanksJonathan Lu > ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Ben Evans Send Time:2017?3?10?(???) 01:43To:Tim Ellison ; Martijn Verburg Cc:adopt-openjdk ; adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net ; openjdk-binary-gateway Subject:Re: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK > Hi Tim, > > This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt > would very much be interested in. > > I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not > sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > > Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? > > Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do > to help you? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >> build process. >> >> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >> >> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >> repo. >> >> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >> binary. >> >> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >> >> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >> from there. >> >> Thoughts? >> Tim >> Unless stated otherwise above: >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >> 741598. >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From mikeb at mycosystems.co.uk Fri Mar 10 12:59:56 2017 From: mikeb at mycosystems.co.uk (Mike Burton) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:56 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Hi Tim, I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. Best Regards Mike Burton > On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: > > On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt >> would very much be interested in. > > That's good to hear. > >> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > > I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate > once there is consensus on a home for this. > >> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? >> >> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >> to help you? > > Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, > and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being > able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. > > [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk > > Regards, > Tim > >> Thanks, >> >> Ben >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>> build process. >>> >>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>> >>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>> repo. >>> >>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>> binary. >>> >>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>> >>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>> from there. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Tim >>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>> 741598. >>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 13:40:41 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:40:41 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? Rough consensus and running code, and all that? Ben On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. > > Best Regards > > Mike Burton > > > >> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >> >> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt >>> would very much be interested in. >> >> That's good to hear. >> >>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >> >> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate >> once there is consensus on a home for this. >> >>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? >>> >>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >>> to help you? >> >> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, >> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >> >> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>>> build process. >>>> >>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>> >>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>>> repo. >>>> >>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>>> binary. >>>> >>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>>> from there. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Tim >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>>> 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> > From t.p.ellison at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 14:59:55 2017 From: t.p.ellison at gmail.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:59:55 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any naming convention ;-) I'd like to end up with: foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror foo-build = build scripts foo-nightly = location of nightly builds foo-releases = location for releases foo-website = website source/host Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access in those too! Regards, Tim On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: > I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's > repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if > anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? > > Rough consensus and running code, and all that? > > Ben > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton wrote: >> Hi Tim, >> >> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Mike Burton >> >> >> >>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> >>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt >>>> would very much be interested in. >>> >>> That's good to hear. >>> >>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>> >>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate >>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>> >>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? >>>> >>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >>>> to help you? >>> >>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, >>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>>>> build process. >>>>> >>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>> >>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>>>> repo. >>>>> >>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>>>> binary. >>>>> >>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>>>> from there. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> Tim >>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>>>> 741598. >>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >> From martijnverburg at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 16:19:47 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:19:47 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to use hg (although it sounds like not) I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror openjdk-build = build scripts openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds openjdk-releases = location for releases openjdk-website = website source/host As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to add repos. Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. Cheers, Martijn On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. > > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any > naming convention ;-) > I'd like to end up with: > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror > foo-build = build scripts > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds > foo-releases = location for releases > foo-website = website source/host > > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access > in those too! > > Regards, > Tim > > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >> >> Ben >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton wrote: >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Mike Burton >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt >>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? >>>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >>>>> to help you? >>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>>>>> build process. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>>>>> repo. >>>>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>>>>> binary. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>>>>> from there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>>>>> 741598. >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Sat Mar 11 10:10:30 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:10:30 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: > I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not > sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. > Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects do. ;) From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the JDK across many platforms are already there. In fact, one such Project already exists: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. cheers, dalibor topic > Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do > to help you? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >> build process. >> >> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >> >> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >> repo. >> >> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >> binary. >> >> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >> >> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >> from there. >> >> Thoughts? >> Tim >> Unless stated otherwise above: >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >> 741598. >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From mikeb at mycosystems.co.uk Sat Mar 11 15:20:34 2017 From: mikeb at mycosystems.co.uk (Mike Burton) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:34 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> Message-ID: <64E92593-61DF-411C-AEC8-9B402CBFBB65@mycosystems.co.uk> Thanks Dalibor, I never looked at IcedTea before so thought I?d give it a go, an easy free alternative to building OpenJDK sounds a good idea. I followed the Developer QuickStart from the wiki which failed needing AutoConf, Automake and pkg-config. Then ./configure failed requiring gsha256sum / sha256sum, even after I did: brew install sha2 Could you point me to resources that can help me fix this please? Also where is the CI? Best Regards Mike Burton > On 11 Mar 2017, at 10:10, dalibor topic wrote: > > > > On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: >> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > > As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. > >> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? > > The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects do. ;) > > From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the JDK across many platforms are already there. > > In fact, one such Project already exists: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > >> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >> to help you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>> build process. >>> >>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>> >>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>> repo. >>> >>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>> binary. >>> >>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>> >>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>> from there. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Tim >>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>> 741598. >>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment From t.p.ellison at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 13:31:10 2017 From: t.p.ellison at gmail.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:31:10 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 11/03/17 10:10, dalibor topic wrote: > On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: >> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > > As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view > this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I > have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. > >> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >> structure? > > The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects > do. ;) Right, and that's why I was tentative in asking if this is the right place to hold the discussions. I came here because of the related history of this group's activities, but if it is not a good fit I'm happy to revert to the google groups discussion list. > From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that > collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - > if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group > would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the > JDK across many platforms are already there. No, it would not be a separate OpenJDK project, rather the adopt group would be discussing how the build scripts are executed to produce a usable binary, and have a shared place to work on the building of OpenJDK. Of course, if there are any requests of the build group, etc discussion will take place over there. > In fact, one such Project already exists: > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if > anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. Hopefully you see that it is not another project, but rather more "accelerate adoption" work. Regards, Tim >> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >> to help you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >> wrote: >>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>> OpenJDK. >>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute >>> to the >>> build process. >>> >>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>> >>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>> will start >>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private >>> Git >>> repo. >>> >>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>> OpenJDK and >>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build >>> system, >>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>> that are >>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>> be build >>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>> binary. >>> >>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>> prefer to >>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>> elsewhere. >>> >>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than >>> that >>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>> things go >>> from there. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Tim >>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>> 741598. >>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>> PO6 3AU >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an >>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Mon Mar 13 06:11:32 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JDK 9 build 160 test results now available Message-ID: <56d52c66-628f-431d-8e84-30ff8b1dc6ab@default> JDK 9 ea build 160 test results are now available at http://www.java.net/download/openjdk/testresults/9/testresults.html The jdk test results contain 9 differences from the build 159 test results. There are 3 testcase failures, these failures are under investigation. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/159/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,155; fail: 6; not run: 2,256 1: /home/jtest/merge9/160/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,152; fail: 9; not run: 2,258 0 1 Test pass --- java/util/concurrent/ArrayBlockingQueue/IteratorConsistency.java --- pass java/util/concurrent/ArrayBlockingQueue/WhiteBox.java pass --- jdk/internal/misc/JavaLangAccess/NewUnsafeString.java pass --- sun/security/krb5/auto/Basic.java pass fail sun/security/pkcs11/sslecc/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java pass fail sun/security/ssl/X509KeyManager/PreferredKey.java pass fail sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TsacertOptionTest.java --- pass sun/security/tools/keytool/WeakAlg.java --- pass tools/launcher/Jexec.java 9 differences The hotspot test results contain 0 differences from the build 159 test results. The langtools test results contain 6 differences from the build 159 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/159/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,576; error: 4; not run: 310 1: /home/jtest/merge9/160/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,580; error: 2; not run: 310 0 1 Test --- pass tools/javac/T8175790/NPEDueToErroneousLambdaTest.java pass error tools/javac/importscope/ImportDependenciesTest.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/DirectiveVisitorTest.java error pass tools/javac/tree/JavacTreeScannerTest.java error pass tools/javac/tree/SourceTreeScannerTest.java error pass tools/javac/tree/TreePosTest.java 6 differences The nashorn test result is available at http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/9/archives/160/emailable-report.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From cnewland at chrisnewland.com Mon Mar 13 08:42:22 2017 From: cnewland at chrisnewland.com (Chris Newland) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:42:22 -0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Tim, all, I see this as worthwhile effort. IMO this doesn't need to meet the OpenJDK definition of a "Project" to be useful activity and the AdoptOpenJDK GitHub feels like the right place to host the "deliverables" (scripts etc). Tim, I run a community OpenJFX build server (chriswhocodes.com) which is mostly used by the ARM / Raspberry Pi community to restore the JavaFX functionality dropped from the Oracle ARM JDKs but can also be used to add JavaFX to Azul's Zulu JDK (another OpenJDK build). I'd be happy to contribute to this effort with my experience with OpenJDK ARM builds if that's useful. Kind regards, Chris @chriswhocodes On Sun, March 12, 2017 13:31, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 11/03/17 10:10, dalibor topic wrote: > >> On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: >> >>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >> >> As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view >> this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I >> have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. >> >>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>> structure? >> >> The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects >> do. ;) > > Right, and that's why I was tentative in asking if this is the right > place to hold the discussions. I came here because of the related history > of this group's activities, but if it is not a good fit I'm happy to > revert to the google groups discussion list. > >> From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that >> collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - >> if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group >> would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the >> JDK across many platforms are already there. >> > > No, it would not be a separate OpenJDK project, rather the adopt group > would be discussing how the build scripts are executed to produce a usable > binary, and have a shared place to work on the building of OpenJDK. Of > course, if there are any requests of the build group, etc discussion will > take place over there. > >> In fact, one such Project already exists: >> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if >> anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. > > Hopefully you see that it is not another project, but rather more > "accelerate adoption" work. > > > Regards, > Tim > > > >>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>> do to help you? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>> OpenJDK. >>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute >>>> to the build process. >>>> >>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>> is the fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>> though it looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>> >>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>> build scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. >>>> It >>>> will start simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, >>>> and Windows. Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building >>>> that out to more meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently >>>> housed in a private Git >>>> repo. >>>> >>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>> OpenJDK and >>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build >>>> system, so everyone can validate how it was created, and the >>>> dependencies and patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea >>>> is that changes that are relevant to OpenJDK source end up back >>>> there; but there will always be build specific-files, and >>>> point-in-time patches required to produce a working binary. >>>> >>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>> prefer to push the code there and continue working under that >>>> organization; but understand if that project would prefer we set up >>>> our own space elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>> system (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much >>>> simpler than that -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and >>>> then see where things go from there. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Tim >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>> number 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>> PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on >>>> the web, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3 >>>> .73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabse >>>> rv.com. >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >> > From Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com Fri Mar 10 17:09:18 2017 From: Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:09:18 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com wrote on 10/03/2017 16:19:47: > Hi all, > > Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the > AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we > also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to > use hg (although it sounds like not) > > I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed > although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: > > openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror > openjdk-build = build scripts > openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds > openjdk-releases = location for releases > openjdk-website = website source/host Sweet. > As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that > this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official > openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). > > I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to > add repos. > > Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. Will do, and the code will come over the next few days once the paperwork is sorted. Tim > On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: > > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal > > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that > > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. > > > > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any > > naming convention ;-) > > I'd like to end up with: > > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror > > foo-build = build scripts > > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds > > foo-releases = location for releases > > foo-website = website source/host > > > > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access > > in those too! > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: > >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's > >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if > >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? > >> > >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? > >> > >> Ben > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton > wrote: > >>> Hi Tim, > >>> > >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https > > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have > > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. > >>> > >>> Best Regards > >>> > >>> Mike Burton > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: > >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that Adopt > >>>>> would very much be interested in. > >>>> > >>>> That's good to hear. > >>>> > >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not > >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. > >>>> > >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most appropriate > >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. > >>>> > >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the > existing structure? > >>>>> > >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do > >>>>> to help you? > >>>> > >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such stuff, > >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being > >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Ben > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison > wrote: > >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work > around OpenJDK. > >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also > contribute to the > >>>>>> build process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/ > test is the > >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project;though it > >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build > >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. > It will start > >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. > >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that > out to more > >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a > private Git > >>>>>> repo. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling > from OpenJDK and > >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully > open build system, > >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and > >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that > changes that are > >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will > always be build > >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to producea working > >>>>>> binary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, > I'd prefer to > >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but > >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own > space elsewhere. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system > >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much > simpler than that > >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see > where things go > >>>>>> from there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>> Tim > >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: > >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales > with number > >>>>>> 741598. > >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, > Hampshire PO6 3AU > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups > >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an > >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to > >>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit > >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/ > OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE% > 40notes.na.collabserv.com. > >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >>>>> > >>> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-binary- > gateway at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web, visit https:// > groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2- > a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-binary- > gateway at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/ > d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/CAP7YuATg%2B3ON2y132t4B5zMTh- > hnBGYgFtp-Jnq3KRV5S%2B%2BE1Q%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Mon Mar 13 09:04:53 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:04:53 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <64E92593-61DF-411C-AEC8-9B402CBFBB65@mycosystems.co.uk> References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> <64E92593-61DF-411C-AEC8-9B402CBFBB65@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: On 11.03.2017 16:20, Mike Burton wrote: > Could you point me to resources that can help me fix this please? Hi Mike, the mailing list used by IcedTea developers is http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/distro-pkg-dev - I would suggest asking for specifics there. > Also where is the CI? CI results are being posted to http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/icedtea-test/ afaict. cheers, dalibor topic > Best Regards > > Mike Burton > >> On 11 Mar 2017, at 10:10, dalibor topic wrote: >> >> >> >> On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >> >> As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. >> >>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing structure? >> >> The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects do. ;) >> >> From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the JDK across many platforms are already there. >> >> In fact, one such Project already exists: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> >>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >>> to help you? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around OpenJDK. >>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute to the >>>> build process. >>>> >>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is the >>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>> >>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will start >>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to more >>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private Git >>>> repo. >>>> >>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from OpenJDK and >>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build system, >>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be build >>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>>> binary. >>>> >>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd prefer to >>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than that >>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things go >>>> from there. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Tim >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number >>>> 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >> >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >> >> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> >> Oracle is committed to developing >> practices and products that help protect the environment > -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From carl at jokl.co.uk Mon Mar 13 09:37:14 2017 From: carl at jokl.co.uk (Carl Jokl) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:37:14 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> <64E92593-61DF-411C-AEC8-9B402CBFBB65@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Dear all Is there any Mobile / Embedded aspect to this effort for which I can help? Regards Carl On 13 March 2017 at 09:04, dalibor topic wrote: > On 11.03.2017 16:20, Mike Burton wrote: > >> Could you point me to resources that can help me fix this please? >> > > Hi Mike, > > the mailing list used by IcedTea developers is > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/distro-pkg-dev - I would > suggest asking for specifics there. > > Also where is the CI? >> > > CI results are being posted to http://mail.openjdk.java.net/p > ipermail/icedtea-test/ afaict. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > > > Best Regards >> >> Mike Burton >> >> On 11 Mar 2017, at 10:10, dalibor topic wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>> >>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not >>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view >>> this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I >>> have enough context about what is being proposed to comment. >>> >>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>> structure? >>>> >>> >>> The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects >>> do. ;) >>> >>> From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that >>> collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. - if >>> I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group would be a >>> better place to discuss it, as people actually building the JDK across many >>> platforms are already there. >>> >>> In fact, one such Project already exists: http://openjdk.java.net/projec >>> ts/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if anything different from it >>> is being discussed or proposed here. >>> >>> cheers, >>> dalibor topic >>> >>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK do >>>> to help you? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>>> OpenJDK. >>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute >>>>> to the >>>>> build process. >>>>> >>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test is >>>>> the >>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; though it >>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>> >>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some build >>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It will >>>>> start >>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>>> more >>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a private >>>>> Git >>>>> repo. >>>>> >>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>>> OpenJDK and >>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build >>>>> system, >>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>>> that are >>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always be >>>>> build >>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a working >>>>> binary. >>>>> >>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>>> prefer to >>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; but >>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>>> elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build system >>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler than >>>>> that >>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where things >>>>> go >>>>> from there. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> Tim >>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>> number >>>>> 741598. >>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 >>>>> 3AU >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups >>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an >>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD >>>>> 8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE% >>>>> 40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >>> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >>> >>> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >>> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >>> >>> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >>> >>> Oracle is committed to developing >>> practices and products that help protect the environment >>> >> >> > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Mon Mar 13 09:38:52 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:38:52 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> Message-ID: <850b8848-8791-311e-c0cd-b6e43348e2ce@oracle.com> On 12.03.2017 14:31, Tim Ellison wrote: > Right, and that's why I was tentative in asking if this is the right > place to hold the discussions. I came here because of the related > history of this group's activities, but if it is not a good fit I'm > happy to revert to the google groups discussion list. Per http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/adoption-discuss this list is for "General discussion about bundling and aiding OpenJDK collaboration" - so as long as it fits under that (fairly broad, in my opinion, and this certainly does ;) umbrella, you're absolutely welcome to use this list. >> In fact, one such Project already exists: >> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/icedtea/ . It's not clear to me what if >> anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here. > > Hopefully you see that it is not another project, but rather more > "accelerate adoption" work. Sure - I am still curious what the specific technical differences are between what you're planning to do and what's been done before with IcedTea. I assume some kind of 'learning from past' or differential analysis has been done by someone before the idea was shared more broadly, so it would be interesting to see it shared with this list. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 10:22:59 2017 From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:22:59 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <850b8848-8791-311e-c0cd-b6e43348e2ce@oracle.com> References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> <850b8848-8791-311e-c0cd-b6e43348e2ce@oracle.com> Message-ID: 2017-03-13 10:38 GMT+01:00 dalibor topic : > > Sure - I am still curious what the specific technical differences are > between what you're planning to do and what's been done before with IcedTea. > I assume some kind of 'learning from past' or differential analysis has been > done by someone before the idea was shared more broadly, so it would be > interesting to see it shared with this list. I'm curious too. >From what I can say, IcedTea produces a common infrastructure for downstream Linux distributions to do their own packaging. I'm not sure how well would do in moving this work, and I mean the actual builds, upstream though, since each build is very specific to the various Linux distributions and it's simply impossible to take care of all of them, this is a task better fit to downstream instead. I would be more akin to have community builds on one or two default target to replace the Oracle EA builds for OpenJDK, just because the license of those builds is sub-optimal, but the amount of work needed for that maybe be overkill for the relative little benefit they would provide, and probably the reason why nobody has done that before. Of course, Windows and Mac builds are slightly different topic, since those are less variable environment (just in the sense there's just one vendor, so relatively less differences to account for). But even here, we do a number of community projects already that can be contributed to instead. There are indeed a number of architectures that are not covered officially with builds, but I'm not sure if providing a binary for those is worth a project, for architectures that need specific configurations and changes you can either decide for a full port, or contribute to the build project as a whole, and, for more exoteric builds, just contribute to IcedTea or create your own downstream, since again, I'm not sure this belongs to OpenJDK, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the original idea? Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 09:07:14 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:07:14 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> <850b8848-8791-311e-c0cd-b6e43348e2ce@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Mario, Providing scripts for the other platforms (Windows, Mac OS X and more esoteric ones) is definitely a goal for this effort. But I wholeheartedly agree that we should leverage / partner with IcedTea. No point in reinventing the wheel! I think the GitHub platform will simply also get more visibility / publicity for these types of efforts (I'll admit this is a guess as infrastructure does not community make). Cheers, Martijn On 13 March 2017 at 10:22, Mario Torre wrote: > 2017-03-13 10:38 GMT+01:00 dalibor topic : >> >> Sure - I am still curious what the specific technical differences are >> between what you're planning to do and what's been done before with IcedTea. >> I assume some kind of 'learning from past' or differential analysis has been >> done by someone before the idea was shared more broadly, so it would be >> interesting to see it shared with this list. > > I'm curious too. > > From what I can say, IcedTea produces a common infrastructure for > downstream Linux distributions to do their own packaging. I'm not sure > how well would do in moving this work, and I mean the actual builds, > upstream though, since each build is very specific to the various > Linux distributions and it's simply impossible to take care of all of > them, this is a task better fit to downstream instead. > > I would be more akin to have community builds on one or two default > target to replace the Oracle EA builds for OpenJDK, just because the > license of those builds is sub-optimal, but the amount of work needed > for that maybe be overkill for the relative little benefit they would > provide, and probably the reason why nobody has done that before. > > Of course, Windows and Mac builds are slightly different topic, since > those are less variable environment (just in the sense there's just > one vendor, so relatively less differences to account for). But even > here, we do a number of community projects already that can be > contributed to instead. > > There are indeed a number of architectures that are not covered > officially with builds, but I'm not sure if providing a binary for > those is worth a project, for architectures that need specific > configurations and changes you can either decide for a full port, or > contribute to the build project as a whole, and, for more exoteric > builds, just contribute to IcedTea or create your own downstream, > since again, I'm not sure this belongs to OpenJDK, but perhaps I'm > misunderstanding the original idea? > > Cheers, > Mario > > -- > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > Please, support open standards: > http://endsoftpatents.org/ From sadhak001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 10:32:47 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:32:47 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <804f27d8-cf37-14d0-fe79-f95e3e5fa440@oracle.com> <850b8848-8791-311e-c0cd-b6e43348e2ce@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi all, We have some scripts from the Cloudbees/jenkins build farm that have evolved over many months and can also be used, happy to share it with the rest when needed. Cheers, Mani On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:07 Martijn Verburg, wrote: > Hi Mario, > > Providing scripts for the other platforms (Windows, Mac OS X and more > esoteric ones) is definitely a goal for this effort. But I > wholeheartedly agree that we should leverage / partner with IcedTea. > No point in reinventing the wheel! > > I think the GitHub platform will simply also get more visibility / > publicity for these types of efforts (I'll admit this is a guess as > infrastructure does not community make). > > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 13 March 2017 at 10:22, Mario Torre > wrote: > > 2017-03-13 10:38 GMT+01:00 dalibor topic : > >> > >> Sure - I am still curious what the specific technical differences are > >> between what you're planning to do and what's been done before with > IcedTea. > >> I assume some kind of 'learning from past' or differential analysis has > been > >> done by someone before the idea was shared more broadly, so it would be > >> interesting to see it shared with this list. > > > > I'm curious too. > > > > From what I can say, IcedTea produces a common infrastructure for > > downstream Linux distributions to do their own packaging. I'm not sure > > how well would do in moving this work, and I mean the actual builds, > > upstream though, since each build is very specific to the various > > Linux distributions and it's simply impossible to take care of all of > > them, this is a task better fit to downstream instead. > > > > I would be more akin to have community builds on one or two default > > target to replace the Oracle EA builds for OpenJDK, just because the > > license of those builds is sub-optimal, but the amount of work needed > > for that maybe be overkill for the relative little benefit they would > > provide, and probably the reason why nobody has done that before. > > > > Of course, Windows and Mac builds are slightly different topic, since > > those are less variable environment (just in the sense there's just > > one vendor, so relatively less differences to account for). But even > > here, we do a number of community projects already that can be > > contributed to instead. > > > > There are indeed a number of architectures that are not covered > > officially with builds, but I'm not sure if providing a binary for > > those is worth a project, for architectures that need specific > > configurations and changes you can either decide for a full port, or > > contribute to the build project as a whole, and, for more exoteric > > builds, just contribute to IcedTea or create your own downstream, > > since again, I'm not sure this belongs to OpenJDK, but perhaps I'm > > misunderstanding the original idea? > > > > Cheers, > > Mario > > > > -- > > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > > > Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > > > Please, support open standards: > > http://endsoftpatents.org/ > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From jvanek at redhat.com Tue Mar 14 12:11:41 2017 From: jvanek at redhat.com (Jiri Vanek) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:11:41 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3be2e596-73b5-9d23-cda4-2b6dddcf6430@redhat.com> Hi! As I consider this feature really missing, I would like to dontate my $0.02: If you - Oracle, community, IBM whoever rich enough - will provide..well donate - an reasonable fast machine[0], I will offer my time and my code[1] to establish proper pull-snapshot-build-offerImages (later also test) for all reasonable forests on http://hg.openjdk.java.net and http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/. If this is working fine, it would be awesome to include it like some x.openjdk.java.net service. I do this already for years, to have pre-releases for fedora packages. J. [0]usually something like x3500 tower server with 2x2.5gh 8core xeon and about 72Gb ram, which can run 6 builders in time - is enough. [1] 99% is done by this jenkins plugin - https://github.com/judovana/jenkins-scm-koji-plugin. the missing 1% is jenkins job configuration, which does not much sense to push public without comunity around. it is forest-pull script and absolute minimal build scripts to provide both fastdebug and release static builds for linuxes and windows. Some 20kb with a patch allowing generic builds on "oldest possible linux" From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 16:40:53 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:40:53 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call Message-ID: Hi, On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running under legacy classloading? Two places that we thought we could start with are: * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or module-info.java * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely adopted modules really are. Thoughts? Thanks, Ben From carl at jokl.co.uk Tue Mar 14 17:46:30 2017 From: carl at jokl.co.uk (Carl Jokl) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:46:30 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings FYI I have an EC meeting with the JavaME Working Group tomorrow. I will let you know how that goes. I have been discussing many JavaME matters at length with Leonardo Rocha Lima ahead of this meeting. I tried to attend one last week but it was postponed due many people being unable to attend. Carl Jokl London Java Community Associate for Mobile/ Embedded / IoT Am 14.03.2017 17:41 schrieb "Ben Evans" : > Hi, > > On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to > open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. > > One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to > which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 > native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running > under legacy classloading? > > Two places that we thought we could start with are: > > * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or module-info.java > > * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories > > I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely > adopted modules really are. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > Ben > From sadhak001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 18:26:25 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:26:25 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, Great idea. >From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job that wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones since the last run ? Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. Cheers, Mani Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, wrote: > Hi, > > On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to > open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. > > One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to > which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 > native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running > under legacy classloading? > > Two places that we thought we could start with are: > > * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or module-info.java > > * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories > > I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely > adopted modules really are. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > Ben > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 11:15:31 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:15:31 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <3be2e596-73b5-9d23-cda4-2b6dddcf6430@redhat.com> References: <3be2e596-73b5-9d23-cda4-2b6dddcf6430@redhat.com> Message-ID: Hi Jiri, Thanks - we'll be looking to utilise Cloudbee's service in the initial instance but if we can't do that then yes we'll be looking to host a small cluster of hardware to run the builds. Cheers, Martijn On 14 March 2017 at 12:11, Jiri Vanek wrote: > Hi! > > As I consider this feature really missing, I would like to dontate my $0.02: > > If you - Oracle, community, IBM whoever rich enough - will provide..well > donate - an reasonable fast machine[0], I will offer my time and my code[1] > to establish proper pull-snapshot-build-offerImages (later also test) for > all reasonable forests on http://hg.openjdk.java.net and > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/. > If this is working fine, it would be awesome to include it like some > x.openjdk.java.net service. > I do this already for years, to have pre-releases for fedora packages. > > J. > > > [0]usually something like x3500 tower server with 2x2.5gh 8core xeon and > about 72Gb ram, which can run 6 builders in time - is enough. > > [1] 99% is done by this jenkins plugin - > https://github.com/judovana/jenkins-scm-koji-plugin. the missing 1% is > jenkins job configuration, which does not much sense to push public without > comunity around. it is forest-pull script and absolute minimal build scripts > to provide both fastdebug and release static builds for linuxes and windows. > Some 20kb with a patch allowing generic builds on "oldest possible linux" From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 11:20:51 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:20:51 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, Great idea and I think those two searches would be a great start. Can't think of many other repositories that would count (BitBucket?). Cheers, Martijn On 14 March 2017 at 18:26, Mani Sarkar wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Great idea. > > From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job that > wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones since > the last run ? > > Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. > > Cheers, > Mani > Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary > > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to >> open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. >> >> One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to >> which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 >> native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running >> under legacy classloading? >> >> Two places that we thought we could start with are: >> >> * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or >> module-info.java >> >> * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories >> >> I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely >> adopted modules really are. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben > > -- > @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & > @adoptajsr programs) > Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | LinkedIn > Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come > chasing after you! From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 11:55:53 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:55:53 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mani, If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them who are hosted on Github. Then, to Martijn's point, we can see which other repositories we may need to target as well. Thanks, Ben On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Great idea. > > From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job that > wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones since > the last run ? > > Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. > > Cheers, > Mani > Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary > > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to >> open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. >> >> One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to >> which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 >> native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running >> under legacy classloading? >> >> Two places that we thought we could start with are: >> >> * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or >> module-info.java >> >> * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories >> >> I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely >> adopted modules really are. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben > > -- > @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & > @adoptajsr programs) > Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | LinkedIn > Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come > chasing after you! From sadhak001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 13:06:46 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:06:46 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, I could have a look at them and create a list. I'm happy to help with the query too, if you like . @martijn - bitbucket Is one other place, thinking of it again, github must have 80% of publicly hosted Java projects. Cheers, Mani On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:55 Ben Evans, wrote: > Hi Mani, > > If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on > Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, > Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them > who are hosted on Github. > > Then, to Martijn's point, we can see which other repositories we may > need to target as well. > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > Great idea. > > > > From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job > that > > wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones > since > > the last run ? > > > > Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. > > > > Cheers, > > Mani > > Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to > >> open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. > >> > >> One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to > >> which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 > >> native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running > >> under legacy classloading? > >> > >> Two places that we thought we could start with are: > >> > >> * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or > >> module-info.java > >> > >> * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories > >> > >> I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely > >> adopted modules really are. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Ben > > > > -- > > @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate > (@adoptopenjdk & > > @adoptajsr programs) > > Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | LinkedIn > > Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > > > Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come > > chasing after you! > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 14:00:41 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:00:41 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well sourceforge is also an old but large repo of Java projects, but most have moved to GitHub as you say. Cheers, Martijn On 15 March 2017 at 13:06, Mani Sarkar wrote: > Hi Ben, > > I could have a look at them and create a list. I'm happy to help with the > query too, if you like . > > @martijn - bitbucket Is one other place, thinking of it again, github must > have 80% of publicly hosted Java projects. > > Cheers, > Mani > > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:55 Ben Evans, wrote: >> >> Hi Mani, >> >> If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on >> Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, >> Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them >> who are hosted on Github. >> >> Then, to Martijn's point, we can see which other repositories we may >> need to target as well. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote: >> > Hi Ben, >> > >> > Great idea. >> > >> > From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job >> > that >> > wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones >> > since >> > the last run ? >> > >> > Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Mani >> > Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to >> >> open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. >> >> >> >> One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to >> >> which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 >> >> native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running >> >> under legacy classloading? >> >> >> >> Two places that we thought we could start with are: >> >> >> >> * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or >> >> module-info.java >> >> >> >> * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories >> >> >> >> I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely >> >> adopted modules really are. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Ben >> > >> > -- >> > @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate >> > (@adoptopenjdk & >> > @adoptajsr programs) >> > Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | >> > LinkedIn >> > Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ >> > >> > Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come >> > chasing after you! > > -- > @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & > @adoptajsr programs) > Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | LinkedIn > Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come > chasing after you! From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Mar 15 14:39:37 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:39:37 +0100 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15.03.2017 12:55, Ben Evans wrote: > If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on > Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, > Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them > who are hosted on Github. I don't think that we have aggregated any information about where a participating project's source code is hosted. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Mar 15 15:58:08 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:58:08 +0100 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's also worth keeping in mind that open source foundations, larger projects etc. have typically favored home-grown source code hosting sites. Surveying such sites may not be as straightforward as typing a query in some search engine. In addition, the results of surveying hosting sites need to be taken with a grain of salt - are you going to count all forks of a repository as a single instance of use, or multiple ones? And so forth. In contrast, it may be much simpler to regularly survey the JCP EC members for their own production of JDK 9-specific artifacts. cheers, dalibor topic On 15.03.2017 15:00, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Well sourceforge is also an old but large repo of Java projects, but > most have moved to GitHub as you say. > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 15 March 2017 at 13:06, Mani Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >> I could have a look at them and create a list. I'm happy to help with the >> query too, if you like . >> >> @martijn - bitbucket Is one other place, thinking of it again, github must >> have 80% of publicly hosted Java projects. >> >> Cheers, >> Mani >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:55 Ben Evans, wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mani, >>> >>> If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on >>> Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, >>> Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them >>> who are hosted on Github. >>> >>> Then, to Martijn's point, we can see which other repositories we may >>> need to target as well. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote: >>>> Hi Ben, >>>> >>>> Great idea. >>>> >>>> From a tech point of view how would you want to scan these - a cron job >>>> that >>>> wakes up every few hours and lists all the repos/projects and new ones >>>> since >>>> the last run ? >>>> >>>> Also what is the plan for non-github repositories. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mani >>>> Ps: feel free to pm me if necessary >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:41 Ben Evans, >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On today's EC call, we had an update from Rory about outreach to >>>>> open-source projects to help ensure testing on JDK 9. >>>>> >>>>> One question that came up is - can we get some better sense as to >>>>> which projects are actually creating modules and going "Java 9 >>>>> native", as opposed to producing Java 9-compatible jars and running >>>>> under legacy classloading? >>>>> >>>>> Two places that we thought we could start with are: >>>>> >>>>> * BigQuery on Github - to detect use of Java 9 keywords or >>>>> module-info.java >>>>> >>>>> * Module files appearing in public artifact repositories >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be really useful to help get an idea of how widely >>>>> adopted modules really are. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate >>>> (@adoptopenjdk & >>>> @adoptajsr programs) >>>> Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | >>>> LinkedIn >>>> Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ >>>> >>>> Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come >>>> chasing after you! >> >> -- >> @theNeomatrix369 | Blog | LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & >> @adoptajsr programs) >> Meet-a-Project - MutabilityDetector | Bitbucket | Github | LinkedIn >> Come to Devoxx UK 2017: http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ >> >> Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come >> chasing after you! -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From sadhak001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 18:59:03 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:59:03 +0000 Subject: Idea from today's JCP EC call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That spells out some homework for us (or me). On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:40 dalibor topic, wrote: > > > On 15.03.2017 12:55, Ben Evans wrote: > > If you have some cycles, if you can identify where each project on > > Rory's list is hosted (unless you already have that information, > > Rory?) then I can get started on writing the query for those of them > > who are hosted on Github. > > I don't think that we have aggregated any information about where a > participating project's source code is hosted. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Fri Mar 17 05:17:55 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JDK 9 build 161 test results now available Message-ID: <0375b2ae-83fc-4b82-b502-d8ea33a71c39@default> JDK 9 ea build 161 test results are now available at http://www.java.net/download/openjdk/testresults/9/testresults.html The jdk test results contain 7 differences from the build 160 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/160/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,152; fail: 9; not run: 2,258 1: /home/jtest/merge9/161/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,156; fail: 6; error: 1; not run: 2,269 0 1 Test --- pass java/net/MulticastSocket/NetworkInterfaceEmptyGetInetAddressesTest.java --- pass jdk/modules/etc/JdkQualifiedExportTest.java --- pass sun/nio/cs/OLD/TestIBMDB.java fail pass sun/security/pkcs11/sslecc/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java fail --- sun/security/ssl/X509KeyManager/PreferredKey.java fail pass sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TsacertOptionTest.java pass error sun/tools/jstatd/TestJstatdExternalRegistry.java 7 differences The hotspot test results contain 8 differences from the build 160 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/160/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,437; error: 1; not run: 59 1: /home/jtest/merge9/161/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,445; error: 1; not run: 59 0 1 Test --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/ClassSearchTest.java --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/ClassSourceTest.java --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/SearchPathTest.java --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/directory/DirectorySourceProviderTest.java --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/jar/JarSourceProviderTest.java --- pass compiler/aot/jdk.tools.jaotc.test/src/jdk/tools/jaotc/test/collect/module/ModuleSourceProviderTest.java --- pass compiler/c1/UnsafeVolatileGuardTest.java --- pass compiler/c1/VolatileGuardTest.java 8 differences The langtools test results contain 12 differences from the build 160 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/160/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,580; error: 2; not run: 310 1: /home/jtest/merge9/161/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,584; error: 5; not run: 310 0 1 Test --- pass tools/javac/T8175198/AnnotationsAndFormalParamsTest.java --- pass tools/javac/T8175235/InferenceRegressionTest01.java --- pass tools/javac/T8175235/InferenceRegressionTest02.java pass error tools/javac/TryWithResources/TwrClose.java --- pass tools/javac/defaultMethods/private/PrivateInterfaceMethodProcessorTest.java pass error tools/javac/generics/rawOverride/7062745/GenericOverrideTest.java error pass tools/javac/importscope/ImportDependenciesTest.java pass error tools/javac/importscope/NegativeCyclicDependencyTest.java --- pass tools/javac/lambda/T8175317.java --- pass tools/javac/overload/T8176265.java --- pass tools/javac/tree/TestPrettyDocComment.java pass error tools/javadoc/TestScriptInComment.java 12 differences The nashorn test result is available at http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/9/archives/161/emailable-report.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From martijnverburg at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 09:36:53 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:36:53 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George created as admins to all of them. @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let me know if you want me to create those. I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then re-organise from there. In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. Cheers, Martijn On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: > Hi All, > > thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and > created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes > repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos > requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we > have contributor access to your end too > > Thanks George > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >> use hg (although it sounds like not) >> >> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >> >> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >> openjdk-build = build scripts >> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >> openjdk-releases = location for releases >> openjdk-website = website source/host >> >> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >> >> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >> add repos. >> >> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >> > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >> > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >> > >> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >> > naming convention ;-) >> > I'd like to end up with: >> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >> > foo-build = build scripts >> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >> > foo-releases = location for releases >> > foo-website = website source/host >> > >> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >> > in those too! >> > >> > Regards, >> > Tim >> > >> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >> >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >> >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >> >> >> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >> >> >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >> >>> >> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >> > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >> >>> >> >>> Best Regards >> >>> >> >>> Mike Burton >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >> >>>>> Adopt >> >>>>> would very much be interested in. >> >>>> >> >>>> That's good to hear. >> >>>> >> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >> >>>>> not >> >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >> >>>> appropriate >> >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >> >>>>> structure? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >> >>>>> do >> >>>>> to help you? >> >>>> >> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >> >>>> stuff, >> >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >> >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Tim >> >>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ben >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >> >>>>>> OpenJDK. >> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >> >>>>>> contribute to the >> >>>>>> build process. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >> >>>>>> is the >> >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >> >>>>>> though it >> >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >> >>>>>> build >> >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >> >>>>>> will start >> >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >> >>>>>> Windows. >> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >> >>>>>> more >> >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >> >>>>>> private Git >> >>>>>> repo. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >> >>>>>> OpenJDK and >> >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >> >>>>>> build system, >> >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >> >>>>>> that are >> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >> >>>>>> be build >> >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >> >>>>>> working >> >>>>>> binary. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >> >>>>>> prefer to >> >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >> >>>>>> but >> >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >> >>>>>> elsewhere. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >> >>>>>> system >> >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >> >>>>>> than that >> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >> >>>>>> things go >> >>>>>> from there. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thoughts? >> >>>>>> Tim >> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >> >>>>>> number >> >>>>>> 741598. >> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >>>>>> Groups >> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> >>>>>> send an >> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to > openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From martijnverburg at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 13:22:25 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:22:25 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi George/All, I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. Cheers, Martijn On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi all, > > The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George > created as admins to all of them. > > @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let > me know if you want me to create those. > > I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then > re-organise from there. > > In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the > Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts > then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine > if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >> have contributor access to your end too >> >> Thanks George >> >> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>> >>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>> >>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>> >>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>> >>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>> add repos. >>> >>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> >>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>> > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>> > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>> > >>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>> > naming convention ;-) >>> > I'd like to end up with: >>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>> > foo-build = build scripts >>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>> > foo-website = website source/host >>> > >>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>> > in those too! >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Tim >>> > >>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>> >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>> >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>> >> >>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>> >> >>> >> Ben >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>> > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Burton >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>> >>>>> Adopt >>> >>>>> would very much be interested in. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>> >>>>> not >>> >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>> >>>> appropriate >>> >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>> >>>>> structure? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>> >>>>> do >>> >>>>> to help you? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>> >>>> stuff, >>> >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>> >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Tim >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Ben >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>> >>>>>> OpenJDK. >>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>> >>>>>> contribute to the >>> >>>>>> build process. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>> >>>>>> is the >>> >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>> >>>>>> though it >>> >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>> >>>>>> build >>> >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>> >>>>>> will start >>> >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>> >>>>>> Windows. >>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>> >>>>>> more >>> >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>> >>>>>> private Git >>> >>>>>> repo. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>> >>>>>> OpenJDK and >>> >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>> >>>>>> build system, >>> >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>> >>>>>> and >>> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>> >>>>>> that are >>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>> >>>>>> be build >>> >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>> >>>>>> working >>> >>>>>> binary. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>> >>>>>> prefer to >>> >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>> >>>>>> but >>> >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>> >>>>>> elsewhere. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>> >>>>>> system >>> >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>> >>>>>> than that >>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>> >>>>>> things go >>> >>>>>> from there. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>> >>>>>> Tim >>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>> >>>>>> number >>> >>>>>> 741598. >>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >>>>>> Groups >>> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> >>>>>> send an >>> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 21:20:29 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:20:29 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating then please send me a message directly. There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. Cheers, Martijn On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi George/All, > > I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think > in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then > I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George >> created as admins to all of them. >> >> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >> me know if you want me to create those. >> >> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >> re-organise from there. >> >> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts >> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine >> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >>> have contributor access to your end too >>> >>> Thanks George >>> >>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>> >>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>> >>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>> >>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>> >>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>>> add repos. >>>> >>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>>> > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>>> > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>> > >>>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>>> > naming convention ;-) >>>> > I'd like to end up with: >>>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>> > foo-build = build scripts >>>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>>> > foo-website = website source/host >>>> > >>>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>>> > in those too! >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Tim >>>> > >>>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>>> >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>>> >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>> >> >>>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>> >> >>>> >> Ben >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>>> > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best Regards >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Mike Burton >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>>> >>>>> Adopt >>>> >>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>>> >>>>> not >>>> >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>> >>>> appropriate >>>> >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>> >>>>> structure? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>>> >>>>> do >>>> >>>>> to help you? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>>> >>>> stuff, >>>> >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>> >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Ben >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK. >>>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>> >>>>>> contribute to the >>>> >>>>>> build process. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>> >>>>>> is the >>>> >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>> >>>>>> though it >>>> >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>> >>>>>> build >>>> >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>>> >>>>>> will start >>>> >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>>> >>>>>> Windows. >>>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>> >>>>>> more >>>> >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>>> >>>>>> private Git >>>> >>>>>> repo. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK and >>>> >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>>> >>>>>> build system, >>>> >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>>> >>>>>> and >>>> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>> >>>>>> that are >>>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>>> >>>>>> be build >>>> >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>>> >>>>>> working >>>> >>>>>> binary. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>> >>>>>> prefer to >>>> >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>>> >>>>>> but >>>> >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>> >>>>>> elsewhere. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>> >>>>>> system >>>> >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>>> >>>>>> than that >>>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>>> >>>>>> things go >>>> >>>>>> from there. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>> >>>>>> number >>>> >>>>>> 741598. >>>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> >>>>>> Groups >>>> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> >>>>>> send an >>>> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 21:26:28 2017 From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:26:28 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Martijn, I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you (or someone else) write a quick summary? Also, perhaps Slack is convenient, but it feels a bit hidden (click through, pm to obtain secrets links, etc...). If this work is producing something that is useful for the OpenJDK community then perhaps the discussion should happen in the open, or at least backed by a wiki page or something? Cheers, Mario 2017-03-21 22:20 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : > Hi all, > > We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join > the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating > then please send me a message directly. > > There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added > but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> Hi George/All, >> >> I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think >> in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then >> I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George >>> created as admins to all of them. >>> >>> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >>> me know if you want me to create those. >>> >>> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >>> re-organise from there. >>> >>> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >>> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts >>> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine >>> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >>>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >>>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >>>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >>>> have contributor access to your end too >>>> >>>> Thanks George >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>>>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>>> >>>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>>> >>>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>>> >>>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>>> >>>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>>>> add repos. >>>>> >>>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>>>> > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>>>> > done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>>> > >>>>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>>>> > naming convention ;-) >>>>> > I'd like to end up with: >>>>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>> > foo-build = build scripts >>>>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>>>> > foo-website = website source/host >>>>> > >>>>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>>>> > in those too! >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > Tim >>>>> > >>>>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>>>> >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>>>> >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Ben >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> Hi Tim, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>>>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>>>> > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best Regards >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Mike Burton >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>>>> >>>>> Adopt >>>>> >>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>>>> >>>>> not >>>>> >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>>> >>>> appropriate >>>>> >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>>> >>>>> structure? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>>>> >>>>> do >>>>> >>>>> to help you? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>>>> >>>> stuff, >>>>> >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>>> >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>> Tim >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK. >>>>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>>> >>>>>> contribute to the >>>>> >>>>>> build process. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>>> >>>>>> is the >>>>> >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>>> >>>>>> though it >>>>> >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>>> >>>>>> build >>>>> >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>>>> >>>>>> will start >>>>> >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>>>> >>>>>> Windows. >>>>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>> >>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>>>> >>>>>> private Git >>>>> >>>>>> repo. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK and >>>>> >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>>>> >>>>>> build system, >>>>> >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>>> >>>>>> that are >>>>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>>>> >>>>>> be build >>>>> >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>>>> >>>>>> working >>>>> >>>>>> binary. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>>> >>>>>> prefer to >>>>> >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>>>> >>>>>> but >>>>> >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>>> >>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>>> >>>>>> system >>>>> >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>>>> >>>>>> than that >>>>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>>>> >>>>>> things go >>>>> >>>>>> from there. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>> >>>>>> number >>>>> >>>>>> 741598. >>>>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> >>>>>> Groups >>>>> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>> >>>>>> send an >>>>> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From Sunny.Chan at gs.com Wed Mar 22 03:58:52 2017 From: Sunny.Chan at gs.com (Chan, Sunny) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:58:52 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK Message-ID: George/Tim, I am interested the process you use to import the openjdk hg repository into the AdoptOpenJDK/Openjdk-jdkx repository - who will be responsible for pushing the updates to the openjdk-jdux repository going forward? I look at the openjdk-build repository and cannot find the relevant code that does the polling from openjdk's hg Thanks. Message: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:22:25 +0000 From: Martijn Verburg To: "george.adams" Cc: "adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net" , OpenJDK Binary Gateway Subject: Re: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi George/All, I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. Cheers, Martijn On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi all, > > The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George > created as admins to all of them. > > @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let > me know if you want me to create those. > > I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then > re-organise from there. > > In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the > Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts > then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine > if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone >> ahead and created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in >> issues and also makes repo permissions much easier. Could you go >> ahead and create the repos requested by Tim and as we are unable to >> transfer the repositories until we have contributor access to your >> end too >> >> Thanks George >> >> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>> >>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>> >>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>> >>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough >>> that this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>> >>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions >>> to add repos. >>> >>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> >>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the >>> > internal paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope >>> > to have that done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>> > >>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow >>> > any naming convention ;-) I'd like to end up with: >>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>> > foo-build = build scripts >>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>> > foo-website = website source/host >>> > >>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write >>> > access in those too! >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Tim >>> > >>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving >>> >> Tim's repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 >>> >> hours, see if anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>> >> >>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>> >> >>> >> Ben >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into >>> >>> https >>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont >>> > have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Burton >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing >>> >>>>> that Adopt would very much be interested in. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as >>> >>>>> I'm not sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>> >>>> appropriate once there is consensus on a home for this. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the >>> >>>>> existing structure? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can >>> >>>>> AdoptOpenJDK do to help you? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about >>> >>>> such stuff, and agreement on a natural place to put the work in >>> >>>> progress. Being able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK >>> >>>> org [1] would be nice. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> [1] >>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com >>> >>>> _adoptopenjdk&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLx >>> >>>> fZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuV >>> >>>> g_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=AJfL0UneTC1qLA6oLOl5d6iXON >>> >>>> oly0m11prt8xv6vPc&e= >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Tim >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Ben >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work >>> >>>>>> around OpenJDK. >>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>> >>>>>> contribute to the build process. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community >>> >>>>>> build/test is the fine work that was done as part of the >>> >>>>>> Adopt OpenJDK project; though it looks like that has been >>> >>>>>> quiet for a while? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing >>> >>>>>> some build scripts we'd like to move into the open and share >>> >>>>>> with folks. It will start simple, building Linux x86_64 and >>> >>>>>> rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that >>> >>>>>> out to more meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently >>> >>>>>> housed in a private Git repo. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling >>> >>>>>> from OpenJDK and producing community binaries that are built >>> >>>>>> using a fully open build system, so everyone can validate how >>> >>>>>> it was created, and the dependencies and patches that it >>> >>>>>> includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will >>> >>>>>> always be build specific-files, and point-in-time patches >>> >>>>>> required to produce a working binary. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, >>> >>>>>> I'd prefer to push the code there and continue working under >>> >>>>>> that organization; but understand if that project would >>> >>>>>> prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java >>> >>>>>> build system (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); >>> >>>>>> it's much simpler than that >>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see >>> >>>>>> where things go from there. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>> >>>>>> Tim >>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales >>> >>>>>> with number 741598. >>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, >>> >>>>>> Hampshire >>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >>>>>> Google Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> >>>>>> it, send an email to >>> >>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-2DON802580DE.004DB23A-2D802580DE.00594BDE-2540notes.na.collabserv.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=-s4hed6Fxg4dUfSzfSzQhZGGZP7HDSEFkuSO7eIZE7w&e= . >>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> > send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_bbecbb8d-2D7a59-2Dc2f2-2Da85b-2Dddb09d4a86fb-2540gmail.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=6_QBchkZU93SuhXvvdvX9OsckNMJKSUQQUKrIx8vSeI&e= . >>> > For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web, visit >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_d547005b-2D3027-2D42bd-2Da90f-2Dbf09d25049b2-2540googlegroups.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=5Tm4LZZyVPEGyVCbQJpr3up9M_B2NwaaZMZcAnxG5ks&e= . >> >> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:20:29 +0000 From: Martijn Verburg To: "george.adams" Cc: "adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net" , OpenJDK Binary Gateway Subject: Re: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi all, We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating then please send me a message directly. There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. Cheers, Martijn On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi George/All, > > I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think > in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then > I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team >> George created as admins to all of them. >> >> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >> me know if you want me to create those. >> >> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >> re-organise from there. >> >> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins >> experts then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to >> determine if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone >>> ahead and created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in >>> issues and also makes repo permissions much easier. Could you go >>> ahead and create the repos requested by Tim and as we are unable to >>> transfer the repositories until we have contributor access to your >>> end too >>> >>> Thanks George >>> >>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e >>>> we also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted >>>> to use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>> >>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>> >>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>> >>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough >>>> that this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>> >>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions >>>> to add repos. >>>> >>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the >>>> > internal paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope >>>> > to have that done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>> > >>>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow >>>> > any naming convention ;-) I'd like to end up with: >>>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>> > foo-build = build scripts >>>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>>> > foo-website = website source/host >>>> > >>>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write >>>> > access in those too! >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Tim >>>> > >>>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving >>>> >> Tim's repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 >>>> >> hours, see if anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>> >> >>>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>> >> >>>> >> Ben >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>> >> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into >>>> >>> https >>>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I >>>> > dont have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best Regards >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Mike Burton >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing >>>> >>>>> that Adopt would very much be interested in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>> >>>> appropriate once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the >>>> >>>>> existing structure? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can >>>> >>>>> AdoptOpenJDK do to help you? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about >>>> >>>> such stuff, and agreement on a natural place to put the work >>>> >>>> in progress. Being able to move our repos into the >>>> >>>> AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.co >>>> >>>> m_adoptopenjdk&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPx >>>> >>>> LxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7sa >>>> >>>> UuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=AJfL0UneTC1qLA6oLOl5d6 >>>> >>>> iXONoly0m11prt8xv6vPc&e= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Ben >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work >>>> >>>>>> around OpenJDK. >>>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>> >>>>>> contribute to the build process. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community >>>> >>>>>> build/test is the fine work that was done as part of the >>>> >>>>>> Adopt OpenJDK project; though it looks like that has been >>>> >>>>>> quiet for a while? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing >>>> >>>>>> some build scripts we'd like to move into the open and share >>>> >>>>>> with folks. It will start simple, building Linux x86_64 and >>>> >>>>>> rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that >>>> >>>>>> out to more meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's >>>> >>>>>> currently housed in a private Git repo. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling >>>> >>>>>> from OpenJDK and producing community binaries that are built >>>> >>>>>> using a fully open build system, so everyone can validate >>>> >>>>>> how it was created, and the dependencies and patches that it >>>> >>>>>> includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes that are >>>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will >>>> >>>>>> always be build specific-files, and point-in-time patches >>>> >>>>>> required to produce a working binary. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, >>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer to push the code there and continue working under >>>> >>>>>> that organization; but understand if that project would >>>> >>>>>> prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java >>>> >>>>>> build system (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); >>>> >>>>>> it's much simpler than that >>>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see >>>> >>>>>> where things go from there. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales >>>> >>>>>> with number 741598. >>>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, >>>> >>>>>> Hampshire >>>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> >>>>>> Google Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> >>>>>> from it, send an email to >>>> >>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-2DON802580DE.004DB23A-2D802580DE.00594BDE-2540notes.na.collabserv.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=-s4hed6Fxg4dUfSzfSzQhZGGZP7HDSEFkuSO7eIZE7w&e= . >>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> > Google Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> > send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_bbecbb8d-2D7a59-2Dc2f2-2Da85b-2Dddb09d4a86fb-2540gmail.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=6_QBchkZU93SuhXvvdvX9OsckNMJKSUQQUKrIx8vSeI&e= . >>>> > For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_d547005b-2D3027-2D42bd-2Da90f-2Dbf09d25049b2-2540googlegroups.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=5Tm4LZZyVPEGyVCbQJpr3up9M_B2NwaaZMZcAnxG5ks&e= . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:26:28 +0100 From: Mario Torre To: Martijn Verburg Cc: "adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net" , "george.adams" , OpenJDK Binary Gateway Subject: Re: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Martijn, I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you (or someone else) write a quick summary? Also, perhaps Slack is convenient, but it feels a bit hidden (click through, pm to obtain secrets links, etc...). If this work is producing something that is useful for the OpenJDK community then perhaps the discussion should happen in the open, or at least backed by a wiki page or something? Cheers, Mario 2017-03-21 22:20 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : > Hi all, > > We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join > the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating > then please send me a message directly. > > There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added > but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> Hi George/All, >> >> I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think >> in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then >> I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team >>> George created as admins to all of them. >>> >>> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >>> me know if you want me to create those. >>> >>> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >>> re-organise from there. >>> >>> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >>> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins >>> experts then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to >>> determine if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone >>>> ahead and created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in >>>> issues and also makes repo permissions much easier. Could you go >>>> ahead and create the repos requested by Tim and as we are unable to >>>> transfer the repositories until we have contributor access to your >>>> end too >>>> >>>> Thanks George >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e >>>>> we also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just >>>>> wanted to use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>>> >>>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>>> >>>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>>> >>>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough >>>>> that this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>>> >>>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them >>>>> permissions to add repos. >>>>> >>>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the >>>>> > internal paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope >>>>> > to have that done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>>> > >>>>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow >>>>> > any naming convention ;-) I'd like to end up with: >>>>> > foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>> > foo-build = build scripts >>>>> > foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>> > foo-releases = location for releases >>>>> > foo-website = website source/host >>>>> > >>>>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write >>>>> > access in those too! >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > Tim >>>>> > >>>>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving >>>>> >> Tim's repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 >>>>> >> hours, see if anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Ben >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>>> >> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> Hi Tim, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into >>>>> >>> https >>>>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I >>>>> > dont have write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best Regards >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Mike Burton >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing >>>>> >>>>> that Adopt would very much be interested in. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> That's good to hear. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, >>>>> >>>>> as I'm not sure how many other folk are reading >>>>> >>>>> openjdk-binary. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>>> >>>> appropriate once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the >>>>> >>>>> existing structure? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can >>>>> >>>>> AdoptOpenJDK do to help you? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about >>>>> >>>> such stuff, and agreement on a natural place to put the work >>>>> >>>> in progress. Being able to move our repos into the >>>>> >>>> AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.c >>>>> >>>> om_adoptopenjdk&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOY >>>>> >>>> PxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F >>>>> >>>> 7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=AJfL0UneTC1qLA6oLO >>>>> >>>> l5d6iXONoly0m11prt8xv6vPc&e= >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>> Tim >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work >>>>> >>>>>> around OpenJDK. >>>>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>>> >>>>>> contribute to the build process. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community >>>>> >>>>>> build/test is the fine work that was done as part of the >>>>> >>>>>> Adopt OpenJDK project; though it looks like that has been >>>>> >>>>>> quiet for a while? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing >>>>> >>>>>> some build scripts we'd like to move into the open and >>>>> >>>>>> share with folks. It will start simple, building Linux >>>>> >>>>>> x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and Windows. >>>>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building >>>>> >>>>>> that out to more meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's >>>>> >>>>>> currently housed in a private Git repo. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling >>>>> >>>>>> from OpenJDK and producing community binaries that are >>>>> >>>>>> built using a fully open build system, so everyone can >>>>> >>>>>> validate how it was created, and the dependencies and >>>>> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that >>>>> >>>>>> changes that are relevant to OpenJDK source end up back >>>>> >>>>>> there; but there will always be build specific-files, and >>>>> >>>>>> point-in-time patches required to produce a working binary. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK >>>>> >>>>>> project, I'd prefer to push the code there and continue >>>>> >>>>>> working under that organization; but understand if that >>>>> >>>>>> project would prefer we set up our own space elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java >>>>> >>>>>> build system (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); >>>>> >>>>>> it's much simpler than that >>>>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see >>>>> >>>>>> where things go from there. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>> >>>>>> number >>>>> >>>>>> 741598. >>>>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> >>>>>> Groups >>>>> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>> >>>>>> send an >>>>> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-2DON802580DE.004DB23A-2D802580DE.00594BDE-2540notes.na.collabserv.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=-s4hed6Fxg4dUfSzfSzQhZGGZP7HDSEFkuSO7eIZE7w&e= . >>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_bbecbb8d-2D7a59-2Dc2f2-2Da85b-2Dddb09d4a86fb-2540gmail.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=6_QBchkZU93SuhXvvdvX9OsckNMJKSUQQUKrIx8vSeI&e= . >>>>> > For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_openjdk-2Dbinary-2Dgateway_d547005b-2D3027-2D42bd-2Da90f-2Dbf09d25049b2-2540googlegroups.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=5Tm4LZZyVPEGyVCbQJpr3up9M_B2NwaaZMZcAnxG5ks&e= . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=8AQF2sgu5icT8uYqG7vnmGYsorAF308oe_skE3C9uqI&e= . -- pgp key: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__subkeys.pgp.net_&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=pQbjL8uRYJoDj0iugCqb5ZYxfhu1J2ztAtf0AmnoUVM&e= PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neugens.wordpress.com&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=FbmsnEEU-MW4jn0ew_-3wyBr2-UlgFlpfFj62RveJzY&e= - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.classpath.org_&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=IrC2nFH_Xt3uGqjqhyNOEXQBm8X67Cn-2qFQGDnp1lo&e= OpenJDK: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__openjdk.java.net_projects_caciocavallo_&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=WIGDLC3yswSNZb9mlKZM3vFjRKR8PIouGSDVdygabR8&e= Please, support open standards: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__endsoftpatents.org_&d=DgICAg&c=7563p3e2zaQw0AB1wrFVgyagb2IE5rTZOYPxLxfZlX4&r=e-nMYEAYoRWWms8SM-H97SgyQYsz-xaiLmQPYwZ3m5E&m=B1F7saUuVg_TOSLru3OGqEs7StOtjYndLiMFskMhB2M&s=m-20OSucjJ5U221PbTmrIX6BsrfrcYWmU1JPXzpyn_0&e= End of adoption-discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 ************************************************ From t.p.ellison at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 04:16:52 2017 From: t.p.ellison at gmail.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:16:52 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: On 21/03/17 21:26, Mario Torre wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you > (or someone else) write a quick summary? I appreciate you asked Martijn, but let me add my 2c. It came about following a discussion about the general lack of an open and reproducible build & test system for the OpenJDK source across multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for developers and end users. There may be some areas of overlap with other past/present efforts, but that's ok IMHO. I expect any duplication to converge in due course. > Also, perhaps Slack is convenient, but it feels a bit hidden (click > through, pm to obtain secrets links, etc...). If this work is > producing something that is useful for the OpenJDK community then > perhaps the discussion should happen in the open, or at least backed > by a wiki page or something? Slack contains general chatter like "I just sent 'bob' the password we need", or me being grumpy about stuff. It's not worth preserving in an archive! More interesting discussions will take place here, or via the Github issues; and consensus recorded on this project website/wiki or the repo wiki as appropriate. Regards, Tim > Cheers, > Mario > > 2017-03-21 22:20 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : >> Hi all, >> >> We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join >> the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating >> then please send me a message directly. >> >> There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added >> but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>> Hi George/All, >>> >>> I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think >>> in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then >>> I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> >>> On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George >>>> created as admins to all of them. >>>> >>>> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >>>> me know if you want me to create those. >>>> >>>> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >>>> re-organise from there. >>>> >>>> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >>>> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts >>>> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine >>>> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >>>>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >>>>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >>>>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >>>>> have contributor access to your end too >>>>> >>>>> Thanks George >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>>>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>>>>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>>>> >>>>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>>>> >>>>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>>>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>>>> >>>>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>>>>> add repos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Martijn >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>> Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>>>>>> paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>>>>>> done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>>>>>> naming convention ;-) >>>>>>> I'd like to end up with: >>>>>>> foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>>> foo-build = build scripts >>>>>>> foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>>> foo-releases = location for releases >>>>>>> foo-website = website source/host >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>>>>>> in those too! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>>>>>>> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>>>>>>> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>>>>>> ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>>>>>> write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mike Burton >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>>>>>>>>>> Adopt >>>>>>>>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's good to hear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>>>>>>>> appropriate >>>>>>>>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>>>>>>>>> structure? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>> to help you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>>>>>>>>> stuff, >>>>>>>>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>>>>>>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK. >>>>>>>>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>>>>>>>>>> contribute to the >>>>>>>>>>>> build process. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>>>>>>>>>> though it >>>>>>>>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>>>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>>>>>>>>>>> will start >>>>>>>>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows. >>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>>>>>>>>>>> private Git >>>>>>>>>>>> repo. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK and >>>>>>>>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>>>>>>>>>>> build system, >>>>>>>>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>>>>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>>>>>>>>>>> be build >>>>>>>>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>> binary. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to >>>>>>>>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>>>>>>>>>>> things go >>>>>>>>>>>> from there. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>>>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>> 741598. >>>>>>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>>>>>>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>>>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>> an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 06:58:59 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:58:59 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: I'm also open to archiving / publicising the entire Slack channel as well, certainly not interesting in hiding anything! We just need(ed) a real-time IM client to get stuff done quickly and for better or for worse Slack is the dominant useful tool in this space. I guess IRC faces the same issue in that not everyone can access it during the day from work? Cheers, Martijn On 22 March 2017 at 04:16, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 21/03/17 21:26, Mario Torre wrote: >> Hi Martijn, >> >> I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you >> (or someone else) write a quick summary? > > I appreciate you asked Martijn, but let me add my 2c. > > It came about following a discussion about the general lack of an open > and reproducible build & test system for the OpenJDK source across > multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has > already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for > developers and end users. > > There may be some areas of overlap with other past/present efforts, but > that's ok IMHO. I expect any duplication to converge in due course. > >> Also, perhaps Slack is convenient, but it feels a bit hidden (click >> through, pm to obtain secrets links, etc...). If this work is >> producing something that is useful for the OpenJDK community then >> perhaps the discussion should happen in the open, or at least backed >> by a wiki page or something? > > Slack contains general chatter like "I just sent 'bob' the password we > need", or me being grumpy about stuff. It's not worth preserving in an > archive! > > More interesting discussions will take place here, or via the Github > issues; and consensus recorded on this project website/wiki or the repo > wiki as appropriate. > > Regards, > Tim > >> Cheers, >> Mario >> >> 2017-03-21 22:20 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join >>> the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating >>> then please send me a message directly. >>> >>> There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added >>> but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martijn >>> >>> >>> On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>> Hi George/All, >>>> >>>> I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think >>>> in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then >>>> I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George >>>>> created as admins to all of them. >>>>> >>>>> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >>>>> me know if you want me to create those. >>>>> >>>>> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >>>>> re-organise from there. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >>>>> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts >>>>> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine >>>>> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >>>>>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >>>>>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >>>>>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >>>>>> have contributor access to your end too >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks George >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>>>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>>>>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>>>>>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>>>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>>>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>>>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>>>>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>>>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>>>>>> add repos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Martijn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>>> Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>>>>>>> paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>>>>>>> done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>>>>>>> naming convention ;-) >>>>>>>> I'd like to end up with: >>>>>>>> foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>>>> foo-build = build scripts >>>>>>>> foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>>>> foo-releases = location for releases >>>>>>>> foo-website = website source/host >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>>>>>>> in those too! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>>> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>>>>>>>> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>>>>>>>> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>>>>>>> ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>>>>>>> write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Burton >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>>>>>>>>>>> Adopt >>>>>>>>>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's good to hear. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>>>>>>>>> appropriate >>>>>>>>>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>>>>>>>>>> structure? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>> to help you? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>>>>>>>>>> stuff, >>>>>>>>>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>>>>>>>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> build process. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>>>>>>>>>>> though it >>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>>>>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> will start >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> private Git >>>>>>>>>>>>> repo. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK and >>>>>>>>>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>>>>>>>>>>>> build system, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>>>>>>>>>>>> be build >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>>> binary. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to >>>>>>>>>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>>>>>>>>>>>> things go >>>>>>>>>>>>> from there. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>>>>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>>> 741598. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>>>>>>>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>>>>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>>> an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 09:47:16 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:47:16 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: I've raised an issue on the Github project for this and will investigate today. Cheers, Martijn On 22 March 2017 at 06:58, Martijn Verburg wrote: > I'm also open to archiving / publicising the entire Slack channel as > well, certainly not interesting in hiding anything! We just need(ed) a > real-time IM client to get stuff done quickly and for better or for > worse Slack is the dominant useful tool in this space. > > I guess IRC faces the same issue in that not everyone can access it > during the day from work? > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 22 March 2017 at 04:16, Tim Ellison wrote: >> On 21/03/17 21:26, Mario Torre wrote: >>> Hi Martijn, >>> >>> I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you >>> (or someone else) write a quick summary? >> >> I appreciate you asked Martijn, but let me add my 2c. >> >> It came about following a discussion about the general lack of an open >> and reproducible build & test system for the OpenJDK source across >> multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has >> already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for >> developers and end users. >> >> There may be some areas of overlap with other past/present efforts, but >> that's ok IMHO. I expect any duplication to converge in due course. >> >>> Also, perhaps Slack is convenient, but it feels a bit hidden (click >>> through, pm to obtain secrets links, etc...). If this work is >>> producing something that is useful for the OpenJDK community then >>> perhaps the discussion should happen in the open, or at least backed >>> by a wiki page or something? >> >> Slack contains general chatter like "I just sent 'bob' the password we >> need", or me being grumpy about stuff. It's not worth preserving in an >> archive! >> >> More interesting discussions will take place here, or via the Github >> issues; and consensus recorded on this project website/wiki or the repo >> wiki as appropriate. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >>> Cheers, >>> Mario >>> >>> 2017-03-21 22:20 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> We've made a good chunk of progress on this. If anyone wants to join >>>> the Slack channel where the developers are currently co-ordinating >>>> then please send me a message directly. >>>> >>>> There's a few bugs to iron out and some clearer wording to be added >>>> but we should have a version out for review in the next week or so. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17 March 2017 at 13:22, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>> Hi George/All, >>>>> >>>>> I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README. LMK what you think >>>>> in terms of it's tone and message. If we have a rough consensus then >>>>> I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George >>>>>> created as admins to all of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let >>>>>> me know if you want me to create those. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then >>>>>> re-organise from there. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the >>>>>> Cloudbees situation. If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts >>>>>> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine >>>>>> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Martijn >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams wrote: >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and >>>>>>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes >>>>>>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos >>>>>>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we >>>>>>> have contributor access to your end too >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks George >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread. Totally happy with the >>>>>>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point. Please not e we >>>>>>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to >>>>>>>> use hg (although it sounds like not) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed >>>>>>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> openjdk-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>>>> openjdk-build = build scripts >>>>>>>> openjdk-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>>>> openjdk-releases = location for releases >>>>>>>> openjdk-website = website source/host >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that >>>>>>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official >>>>>>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to >>>>>>>> add repos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Martijn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>>>> Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal >>>>>>>>> paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that >>>>>>>>> done approx. mid-week. I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any >>>>>>>>> naming convention ;-) >>>>>>>>> I'd like to end up with: >>>>>>>>> foo-jdk8u = openjdk source mirror >>>>>>>>> foo-build = build scripts >>>>>>>>> foo-nightly = location of nightly builds >>>>>>>>> foo-releases = location for releases >>>>>>>>> foo-website = website source/host >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome. We'd also need write access >>>>>>>>> in those too! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's >>>>>>>>>> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if >>>>>>>>>> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rough consensus and running code, and all that? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https >>>>>>>>> ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have >>>>>>>>> write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike Burton >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adopt >>>>>>>>>>>>> would very much be interested in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's good to hear. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most >>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>> once there is consensus on a home for this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK >>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>> to help you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, >>>>>>>>>>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress. Being >>>>>>>>>>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build process. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will start >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful tests. We like Git, so it's currently housed in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> private Git >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches that it includes, etc. Of course, the idea is that changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be build >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>>>> binary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things go >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 741598. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO6 3AU >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>>>> an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 15:01:37 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:01:37 +0000 Subject: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? In-Reply-To: References: <050e512b-3974-333e-13a6-d3b2caf855ca@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi all, We (https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/) is deliberately building the latest stable (3.1) binary. Happy to add another job to build and produce a nightly build based on the latest source if that helps? CCing in the adoption-discuss list as that's where Mani and other folks who manage that discuss these things. Cheers, Martijn On 22 March 2017 at 11:30, Gunnar Morling wrote: > Hi Mikhail, > > Thanks for your quick reply. > >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 > > Building from source is very impractical for any project seeking to > incorporate SigTest into their build. > >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here > > Yes, but that's a moving target really. It seems to re-build the "3.1" > version with each run, so it's nothing stable to rely on. > > Can you do a release of SigTest to Maven Central? That way there will > be a proper release of a defined version of the code base, and it's > easily consumable for users (as well as the mentioned Maven plug-in > maintained by the NetBeans team). > > SigTest is such a useful tool - e.g. the Bean Validation spec is using > it for checking API compliance of providers - but in its current form > it's unfortunately close to impossible to use it in a repeatable, > automated way. > > Having it in Maven Central would greatly change that. > > Thanks, > > --Gunnar > > > > > > 2017-03-22 12:18 GMT+01:00 Mikhail Ershov : >> Hi Gunnar, >> >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 and build it: >> >>>hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/sigtest >>>cd sigtest/build >> edit build.properties (you have to point to java 8 at least) >>>ant >> >> Maven plugin sources are there but I'm not 100% sure that this part is in a >> good shape and actual. >> >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here >> https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/ but unfortunately I >> can't point to our actual binaries. >> >> Feel free to ask any questions, >> >> Mike Ershov >> SigTest developer. >> >> >> On 22.03.2017 12:59, Gunnar Morling wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm looking for an authoritative release of the SigTest tool. More >>> specifically, what is the latest stable version and where can I >>> download it? >>> >>> [1] mentions a "3.0 Milestone Release (March 4, 2014)" but I can't >>> seem to find that. The "Released" link on the same page points to a CI >>> job which apparently re-builds version 3.1 regularly. [2] provides a >>> "3.0 dev binary bundle" from April 2013. >>> >>> Any pointers on where to find the latest stable version would be >>> highly appreciated. >>> >>> Btw. I also learned about the "sigtest-maven-plugin" maintained by the >>> NetBeans project [3], which apparently has forked the SigTest sources. >>> It'd be great to have an official release of the original project in >>> Maven Central, so that it can be consumed by this plug-in and other >>> users. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> --Gunnar >>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/CodeTools/sigtest >>> [2] http://download.java.net/sigtest/download.html >>> [3] http://wiki.netbeans.org/SigTest >> >> From sadhak001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 15:10:16 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:10:16 +0000 Subject: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? In-Reply-To: References: <050e512b-3974-333e-13a6-d3b2caf855ca@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Gunnar, Please send details of any other related project that need their binary produced and hosted on our farm just like the existing ones. We will try to get them setup for the community. Cheers, Mani On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 at 15:02 Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi all, > > We (https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/) is > deliberately building the latest stable (3.1) binary. Happy to add > another job to build and produce a nightly build based on the latest > source if that helps? > > CCing in the adoption-discuss list as that's where Mani and other > folks who manage that discuss these things. > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 22 March 2017 at 11:30, Gunnar Morling wrote: > > Hi Mikhail, > > > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > > >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 > > > > Building from source is very impractical for any project seeking to > > incorporate SigTest into their build. > > > >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here > > > > Yes, but that's a moving target really. It seems to re-build the "3.1" > > version with each run, so it's nothing stable to rely on. > > > > Can you do a release of SigTest to Maven Central? That way there will > > be a proper release of a defined version of the code base, and it's > > easily consumable for users (as well as the mentioned Maven plug-in > > maintained by the NetBeans team). > > > > SigTest is such a useful tool - e.g. the Bean Validation spec is using > > it for checking API compliance of providers - but in its current form > > it's unfortunately close to impossible to use it in a repeatable, > > automated way. > > > > Having it in Maven Central would greatly change that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Gunnar > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-22 12:18 GMT+01:00 Mikhail Ershov : > >> Hi Gunnar, > >> > >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 and build it: > >> > >>>hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/sigtest > >>>cd sigtest/build > >> edit build.properties (you have to point to java 8 at least) > >>>ant > >> > >> Maven plugin sources are there but I'm not 100% sure that this part is > in a > >> good shape and actual. > >> > >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here > >> https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/ but unfortunately I > >> can't point to our actual binaries. > >> > >> Feel free to ask any questions, > >> > >> Mike Ershov > >> SigTest developer. > >> > >> > >> On 22.03.2017 12:59, Gunnar Morling wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm looking for an authoritative release of the SigTest tool. More > >>> specifically, what is the latest stable version and where can I > >>> download it? > >>> > >>> [1] mentions a "3.0 Milestone Release (March 4, 2014)" but I can't > >>> seem to find that. The "Released" link on the same page points to a CI > >>> job which apparently re-builds version 3.1 regularly. [2] provides a > >>> "3.0 dev binary bundle" from April 2013. > >>> > >>> Any pointers on where to find the latest stable version would be > >>> highly appreciated. > >>> > >>> Btw. I also learned about the "sigtest-maven-plugin" maintained by the > >>> NetBeans project [3], which apparently has forked the SigTest sources. > >>> It'd be great to have an official release of the original project in > >>> Maven Central, so that it can be consumed by this plug-in and other > >>> users. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> --Gunnar > >>> > >>> [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/CodeTools/sigtest > >>> [2] http://download.java.net/sigtest/download.html > >>> [3] http://wiki.netbeans.org/SigTest > >> > >> > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 14:08:24 2017 From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:08:24 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: 2017-03-22 5:16 GMT+01:00 Tim Ellison : > On 21/03/17 21:26, Mario Torre wrote: >> Hi Martijn, >> >> I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you >> (or someone else) write a quick summary? > > I appreciate you asked Martijn, but let me add my 2c. > > It came about following a discussion about the general lack of an open > and reproducible build & test system for the OpenJDK source across > multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has > already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for > developers and end users. Hello Tim, But the build infrastructure seems to be working quite well, at least on every platform I tried (Linux x86 and arm and OSX) things work pretty well and are relatively straightforward. I don't know about Windows of course. So are you providing binaries and/or hardware access to perform those builds? I believe that would be more interesting in the long run. Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From martijnverburg at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 14:30:17 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:30:17 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Mario, Yes the intention is to provide binaries and hardware access for all of the major platforms which can be used for: * R&D purposes * A basis for vendors to build on * Something that end users can tinker with * A place to try out build infra ideas that might one day be promoted to OpenJDK proper We'll start with jdk8u (with jtreg tests and jcov results) and then later on add jdk9, jdk10 and other interesting forests (valhalla, shenandoah, that sort of thing). Although we will be making the binaries to the highest quality possible via jtreg, jcov test coverage and possibly other donated test suites it is It is *not* the intention that the binaries produced will be professionally supported. A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can know exactly how a binary was built. We currently have Linux x64 and Mac OS X and are looking to rapidly add the other common Linux variants + Windoze and Solaris. I imagine some strong collaboration can form here with IcedTea and other efforts! We're still working on the publicizing of the slack channel so there's nothing hidden and I've got an About page to throw up but then the strawman prototype is ready to be looked at and we can organise a Google hangout or similar for the core people behind the Docker / script and website work to explain how it all hangs together. Cheers, Martijn On 23 March 2017 at 14:08, Mario Torre wrote: > 2017-03-22 5:16 GMT+01:00 Tim Ellison : >> On 21/03/17 21:26, Mario Torre wrote: >>> Hi Martijn, >>> >>> I'm still a bit confused what this project is trying to do, can you >>> (or someone else) write a quick summary? >> >> I appreciate you asked Martijn, but let me add my 2c. >> >> It came about following a discussion about the general lack of an open >> and reproducible build & test system for the OpenJDK source across >> multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has >> already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for >> developers and end users. > > Hello Tim, > > But the build infrastructure seems to be working quite well, at least > on every platform I tried (Linux x86 and arm and OSX) things work > pretty well and are relatively straightforward. I don't know about > Windows of course. > > So are you providing binaries and/or hardware access to perform those > builds? I believe that would be more interesting in the long run. > > Cheers, > Mario > -- > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > Please, support open standards: > http://endsoftpatents.org/ From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 14:59:46 2017 From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:59:46 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: 2017-03-23 15:30 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : > A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, > build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can > know exactly how a binary was built. > > We currently have Linux x64 and Mac OS X and are looking to rapidly > add the other common Linux variants + Windoze and Solaris. I imagine > some strong collaboration can form here with IcedTea and other > efforts! Yes, this is a nice idea. IcedTea is already the base for most downstream Linux distributions, but we don't have the resources to offer a build farm or binaries, so I can see value added in this case. You should really try to sync up with Jiri about that. For the windozer stuff, Alex Kashchenko is working on that, it may make sense for you to sync up with him too, I think his work is quite advanced at this stage: https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild > We're still working on the publicizing of the slack channel so there's > nothing hidden and I've got an About page to throw up but then the > strawman prototype is ready to be looked at and we can organise a > Google hangout or similar for the core people behind the Docker / > script and website work to explain how it all hangs together. I'm looking forward for the iron curtain to be lifted ;) Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From martijnverburg at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 15:15:29 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:15:29 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Mario, Perfect! You can already see all of the code and issues etc at the http://www.gihub.com/AdoptOpenJDK (look for the recent openjdk-* named repos). You can see the CI master at http://ci.adoptopenjdk.net. I really do want to get one more website fix in before I release that today as it will convey important licensing and community information (I don't want FUD about this effort to spread, so a decent About / FAQ is required). Cheers, Martijn On 23 March 2017 at 14:59, Mario Torre wrote: > 2017-03-23 15:30 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : > >> A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, >> build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can >> know exactly how a binary was built. >> >> We currently have Linux x64 and Mac OS X and are looking to rapidly >> add the other common Linux variants + Windoze and Solaris. I imagine >> some strong collaboration can form here with IcedTea and other >> efforts! > > Yes, this is a nice idea. > > IcedTea is already the base for most downstream Linux distributions, > but we don't have the resources to offer a build farm or binaries, so > I can see value added in this case. You should really try to sync up > with Jiri about that. > > For the windozer stuff, Alex Kashchenko is working on that, it may > make sense for you to sync up with him too, I think his work is quite > advanced at this stage: > > https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild > >> We're still working on the publicizing of the slack channel so there's >> nothing hidden and I've got an About page to throw up but then the >> strawman prototype is ready to be looked at and we can organise a >> Google hangout or similar for the core people behind the Docker / >> script and website work to explain how it all hangs together. > > I'm looking forward for the iron curtain to be lifted ;) > > Cheers, > Mario > > -- > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > Please, support open standards: > http://endsoftpatents.org/ From sadhak001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 16:35:30 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:35:30 +0000 Subject: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? In-Reply-To: References: <050e512b-3974-333e-13a6-d3b2caf855ca@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Gunnar, I'm not speaking on behalf of Martijn (he will come back with his part), but whatever I'll say comes from my experiences contributing to our community. Its great feedback you have come back with, could you give me bullet pointed-set-of constructive actions that we can work on (in agreement with our adopt + build farm folks). I can always create an additional downloadable tar-ball (from the build farm) which complies with your suggestion for version (at least include the JDK version). We could also try to capture some system information about the environment we build the artifact in and include it in the tarball for posterity reasons. If this works for you, please let us know. Thanks. Cheers Mani -------- Response to message from the digest --- Message: 6 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:34:15 +0100 From: Gunnar Morling To: Martijn Verburg Cc: code-tools-dev at openjdk.java.net, "adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net" Subject: Re: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Martijn, Thanks for chiming in. The CI job is cool, but it's not a good source for obtaining a stable artifact. While it seems to re-build the same tag again and again, the produced artifact may change over time. Let's say Java on that CI server gets updated, then the produced bytecode may be a tad different. I.e. different people may end up with up with different versions of "SigTest 3.1", making it very hard to analyse any problems. Taking an artifact from such rather volatile location generally isn't great for a repeatable build of downstream consumers nor is it something I'd like to recommend to users of the Bean Validation TCK (which is where we are using it for). For consumers such as Bean Validation it'd be great if that 3.1 release could be deployed to Maven Central. Then we had one canonical version of it which we can consume it in a repeatable way using standard build procedures. Cheers, --Gunnar On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 at 15:10 Mani Sarkar wrote: > Hi Gunnar, > > Please send details of any other related project that need their binary > produced and hosted on our farm just like the existing ones. > > We will try to get them setup for the community. > > Cheers, > Mani > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 at 15:02 Martijn Verburg > wrote: > > Hi all, > > We (https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/) is > deliberately building the latest stable (3.1) binary. Happy to add > another job to build and produce a nightly build based on the latest > source if that helps? > > CCing in the adoption-discuss list as that's where Mani and other > folks who manage that discuss these things. > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 22 March 2017 at 11:30, Gunnar Morling wrote: > > Hi Mikhail, > > > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > > >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 > > > > Building from source is very impractical for any project seeking to > > incorporate SigTest into their build. > > > >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here > > > > Yes, but that's a moving target really. It seems to re-build the "3.1" > > version with each run, so it's nothing stable to rely on. > > > > Can you do a release of SigTest to Maven Central? That way there will > > be a proper release of a defined version of the code base, and it's > > easily consumable for users (as well as the mentioned Maven plug-in > > maintained by the NetBeans team). > > > > SigTest is such a useful tool - e.g. the Bean Validation spec is using > > it for checking API compliance of providers - but in its current form > > it's unfortunately close to impossible to use it in a repeatable, > > automated way. > > > > Having it in Maven Central would greatly change that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Gunnar > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-22 12:18 GMT+01:00 Mikhail Ershov : > >> Hi Gunnar, > >> > >> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 and build it: > >> > >>>hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/sigtest > >>>cd sigtest/build > >> edit build.properties (you have to point to java 8 at least) > >>>ant > >> > >> Maven plugin sources are there but I'm not 100% sure that this part is > in a > >> good shape and actual. > >> > >> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here > >> https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/ but unfortunately I > >> can't point to our actual binaries. > >> > >> Feel free to ask any questions, > >> > >> Mike Ershov > >> SigTest developer. > >> > >> > >> On 22.03.2017 12:59, Gunnar Morling wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm looking for an authoritative release of the SigTest tool. More > >>> specifically, what is the latest stable version and where can I > >>> download it? > >>> > >>> [1] mentions a "3.0 Milestone Release (March 4, 2014)" but I can't > >>> seem to find that. The "Released" link on the same page points to a CI > >>> job which apparently re-builds version 3.1 regularly. [2] provides a > >>> "3.0 dev binary bundle" from April 2013. > >>> > >>> Any pointers on where to find the latest stable version would be > >>> highly appreciated. > >>> > >>> Btw. I also learned about the "sigtest-maven-plugin" maintained by the > >>> NetBeans project [3], which apparently has forked the SigTest sources. > >>> It'd be great to have an official release of the original project in > >>> Maven Central, so that it can be consumed by this plug-in and other > >>> users. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> --Gunnar > >>> > >>> [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/CodeTools/sigtest > >>> [2] http://download.java.net/sigtest/download.html > >>> [3] http://wiki.netbeans.org/SigTest > >> > >> > > -- > @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog > ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate > (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) > *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector > * | **Bitbucket > * * | **Github > * * | **LinkedIn > * > *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come > chasing after you!* > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com Thu Mar 23 16:50:22 2017 From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:50:22 -0700 Subject: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? In-Reply-To: References: <050e512b-3974-333e-13a6-d3b2caf855ca@oracle.com> Message-ID: <8d0edd02-2a5c-60ef-47d7-8b00f3d4bbf1@oracle.com> Oracle does not publish binary builds for tools in the Code Tools family. For jtreg (another tool in the Code Tools family) we use tags to mark specific changesets for general use. In conjunction with those tags, there are then two builds that are of probable interest: * The latest version tagged with "jtreg-bNN" indicates the latest stable version that is recommended for general use for testing JDK. * The tip is the latest experimental version, and is only recommended for use when the experimental features are required. During JDK 9, this has been used to build versions of jtreg for use with the jigsaw/jake forest, prior to integrating the changes in that forest into jdk9/dev. Perhaps we could use the same or similar methodology for SigTest. -- Jon On 3/22/17 8:34 AM, Gunnar Morling wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Thanks for chiming in. > > The CI job is cool, but it's not a good source for obtaining a stable > artifact. While it seems to re-build the same tag again and again, the > produced artifact may change over time. Let's say Java on that CI > server gets updated, then the produced bytecode may be a tad > different. I.e. different people may end up with up with different > versions of "SigTest 3.1", making it very hard to analyse any > problems. > > Taking an artifact from such rather volatile location generally isn't > great for a repeatable build of downstream consumers nor is it > something I'd like to recommend to users of the Bean Validation TCK > (which is where we are using it for). > > For consumers such as Bean Validation it'd be great if that 3.1 > release could be deployed to Maven Central. Then we had one canonical > version of it which we can consume it in a repeatable way using > standard build procedures. > > Cheers, > > --Gunnar > > > > 2017-03-22 16:01 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : >> Hi all, >> >> We (https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/) is >> deliberately building the latest stable (3.1) binary. Happy to add >> another job to build and produce a nightly build based on the latest >> source if that helps? >> >> CCing in the adoption-discuss list as that's where Mani and other >> folks who manage that discuss these things. >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 22 March 2017 at 11:30, Gunnar Morling wrote: >>> Hi Mikhail, >>> >>> Thanks for your quick reply. >>> >>>> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 >>> Building from source is very impractical for any project seeking to >>> incorporate SigTest into their build. >>> >>>> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here >>> Yes, but that's a moving target really. It seems to re-build the "3.1" >>> version with each run, so it's nothing stable to rely on. >>> >>> Can you do a release of SigTest to Maven Central? That way there will >>> be a proper release of a defined version of the code base, and it's >>> easily consumable for users (as well as the mentioned Maven plug-in >>> maintained by the NetBeans team). >>> >>> SigTest is such a useful tool - e.g. the Bean Validation spec is using >>> it for checking API compliance of providers - but in its current form >>> it's unfortunately close to impossible to use it in a repeatable, >>> automated way. >>> >>> Having it in Maven Central would greatly change that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> --Gunnar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-03-22 12:18 GMT+01:00 Mikhail Ershov : >>>> Hi Gunnar, >>>> >>>> I'd recommend you to clone sources of current v4.0 and build it: >>>> >>>>> hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/sigtest >>>>> cd sigtest/build >>>> edit build.properties (you have to point to java 8 at least) >>>>> ant >>>> Maven plugin sources are there but I'm not 100% sure that this part is in a >>>> good shape and actual. >>>> >>>> You probably can try to get actual binaries built by a community here >>>> https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/sigtest/ but unfortunately I >>>> can't point to our actual binaries. >>>> >>>> Feel free to ask any questions, >>>> >>>> Mike Ershov >>>> SigTest developer. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22.03.2017 12:59, Gunnar Morling wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for an authoritative release of the SigTest tool. More >>>>> specifically, what is the latest stable version and where can I >>>>> download it? >>>>> >>>>> [1] mentions a "3.0 Milestone Release (March 4, 2014)" but I can't >>>>> seem to find that. The "Released" link on the same page points to a CI >>>>> job which apparently re-builds version 3.1 regularly. [2] provides a >>>>> "3.0 dev binary bundle" from April 2013. >>>>> >>>>> Any pointers on where to find the latest stable version would be >>>>> highly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Btw. I also learned about the "sigtest-maven-plugin" maintained by the >>>>> NetBeans project [3], which apparently has forked the SigTest sources. >>>>> It'd be great to have an official release of the original project in >>>>> Maven Central, so that it can be consumed by this plug-in and other >>>>> users. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> --Gunnar >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/CodeTools/sigtest >>>>> [2] http://download.java.net/sigtest/download.html >>>>> [3] http://wiki.netbeans.org/SigTest >>>> From martijnverburg at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 11:06:42 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:06:42 +0000 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, Just a quick note that I've started a wiki page of other OpenJDK build efforts we want to collaborate with, learn from and/or integrate: https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-build/wiki/Other-OpenJDK-Build-Efforts-to-integrate Cheers, Martijn On 23 March 2017 at 15:15, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi Mario, > > Perfect! You can already see all of the code and issues etc at the > http://www.gihub.com/AdoptOpenJDK (look for the recent openjdk-* named > repos). You can see the CI master at http://ci.adoptopenjdk.net. I > really do want to get one more website fix in before I release that > today as it will convey important licensing and community information > (I don't want FUD about this effort to spread, so a decent About / FAQ > is required). > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 23 March 2017 at 14:59, Mario Torre > wrote: > > 2017-03-23 15:30 GMT+01:00 Martijn Verburg : > > > >> A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, > >> build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can > >> know exactly how a binary was built. > >> > >> We currently have Linux x64 and Mac OS X and are looking to rapidly > >> add the other common Linux variants + Windoze and Solaris. I imagine > >> some strong collaboration can form here with IcedTea and other > >> efforts! > > > > Yes, this is a nice idea. > > > > IcedTea is already the base for most downstream Linux distributions, > > but we don't have the resources to offer a build farm or binaries, so > > I can see value added in this case. You should really try to sync up > > with Jiri about that. > > > > For the windozer stuff, Alex Kashchenko is working on that, it may > > make sense for you to sync up with him too, I think his work is quite > > advanced at this stage: > > > > https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild > > > >> We're still working on the publicizing of the slack channel so there's > >> nothing hidden and I've got an About page to throw up but then the > >> strawman prototype is ready to be looked at and we can organise a > >> Google hangout or similar for the core people behind the Docker / > >> script and website work to explain how it all hangs together. > > > > I'm looking forward for the iron curtain to be lifted ;) > > > > Cheers, > > Mario > > > > -- > > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > > > Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > > > Please, support open standards: > > http://endsoftpatents.org/ > From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Fri Mar 24 12:27:08 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JDK 9 build 162 test results now available Message-ID: JDK 9 ea build 162 test results are now available at http://www.java.net/download/openjdk/testresults/9/testresults.html The jdk test results contain 4 differences from the build 161 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/161/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,156; fail: 6; error: 1; not run: 2,269 1: /home/jtest/merge9/162/jdk/JTwork pass: 6,160; fail: 6; error: 1; not run: 2,268 0 1 Test --- pass java/nio/channels/FileChannel/Transfer4GBFile.java --- pass java/nio/channels/FileChannel/TransferTo6GBFile.java --- pass sun/security/krb5/auto/Basic.java --- pass sun/security/pkcs/pkcs8/TestLeadingZeros.java 4 differences The hotspot test results contain 3 differences from the build 161 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/161/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,445; error: 1; not run: 59 1: /home/jtest/merge9/162/hotspot/JTwork pass: 1,448; error: 1; not run: 59 0 1 Test --- pass runtime/constantPool/ACCModule52.java --- pass runtime/constantPool/ConstModule.java --- pass runtime/duplAttributes/TestDupSignatureAttr.java 3 differences The langtools test results contain 7 differences from the build 161 test results. No new testcase failures found. 0: /home/jtest/merge9/161/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,584; error: 5; not run: 310 1: /home/jtest/merge9/162/langtools/JTwork pass: 3,589; error: 3; not run: 314 0 1 Test pass error tools/javac/FinalInitializer_2.java error pass tools/javac/TryWithResources/TwrClose.java --- pass tools/javac/generics/inference/8176534/T8176534.java --- pass tools/javac/generics/inference/8176534/TestUncheckedCalls.java error pass tools/javac/generics/rawOverride/7062745/GenericOverrideTest.java --- pass tools/javac/modules/ModuleInfoPatchPath.java error pass tools/javadoc/TestScriptInComment.java 7 differences The nashorn test result is available at http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/9/archives/162/emailable-report.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From sadhak001 at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 02:04:46 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:04:46 +0000 Subject: TestNG build failing when built using latest JDK9 Message-ID: +Adding Cedric Beust maintainer of TestNG to message Hi All, Before I pass on this message to the respective mailing list, I came across this error (Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InaccessibleObjectException: Unable to make protected java.lang.Package[] java.lang.ClassLoader.getPackages() accessible: module java.base does not "opens java.lang" to unnamed module @5c86a017) in one of the TestNG build logs [1]. I traced this issue back to [2] - seems like a gradle issue? Has anyone else come across this elsewhere when build with *JDK-9-EA+161*, what are the next steps in this case? Thanks. Cheers, Mani [1] https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/TestNG/230/console [2] https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/1095 -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com Mon Mar 27 06:48:29 2017 From: abdul.kolarkunnu at oracle.com (Muneer Kolarkunnu) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 23:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JDK 9 EA Build 162 is available on java.net Message-ID: Hi All, JDK 9 Early Access? HYPERLINK "https://jdk9.java.net/download/"b162? is available on java.net, summary of? changes are listed HYPERLINK "http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/changes/jdk-9+162.html"here . There is one fix for a bug reported by Open Source projects since the last availability email? : b161 - JDK 8176265 Method overload resolution on a covariant base type doesn't work in 9 Other change that maybe of interest: b162 - JDK 8176503 security-libs Disable SHA-1 TLS Server Certificates Better tools for adjusting to strong encapsulation - please read Mark Reinhold's email on this topic [1] Quality Outreach Report for March 2017 is available [2], many thanks for your continued support and welcome to the new projects! Schedule - JDK 9 Rampdown Phase 2: Proposal accepted [3].? The overall goal of this process is to ensure that we fix just the bugs that must be fixed in order to ensure a successful release. Oracle's JRE and JDK Cryptographic Roadmap has been updated since last availability email [4] [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-March/011763.html [2] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/quality/Quality+Outreach+report+March+2017 [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2017-March/005689.html [4] https://www.java.com/en/jre-jdk-cryptoroadmap.html -- Regards, Abdul Muneer Kolarkunnu Quality Engineer Oracle, Bangalore, India From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Mar 28 11:02:31 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:02:31 +0200 Subject: TestNG build failing when built using latest JDK9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20bdc6bd-b4a6-4e30-5358-f78f2b6a28a9@oracle.com> On 25.03.2017 03:04, Mani Sarkar wrote: > Has anyone else come across this elsewhere when build with *JDK-9-EA+161*, > what are the next steps in this case? Hi Mani, the build log you posted claims that it's "Downloading JDK9 EA b88" So you may want to double check that first. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Mar 28 12:44:56 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:44:56 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: <37c469e0-7913-4d11-3d46-42e8b4255fc8@oracle.com> On 22.03.2017 05:16, Tim Ellison wrote: > multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has > already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for > developers and end users. There was no work in this Group to produce binaries. Groups, by definition, do not have any code repositories of their own. No code -> no binaries. ;) Since https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK appears to claim otherwise, I can understand the confusion. That would be up to the current maintainers of that web site to fix. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Mar 28 13:10:10 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:10:10 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: On 23.03.2017 15:30, Martijn Verburg wrote: > * A place to try out build infra ideas that might one day be promoted > to OpenJDK proper 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. In short, if you are expecting to see actual source code, rather than just ideas, eventually flow into OpenJDK, you should look at creating an OpenJDK Project. > A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, > build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can > know exactly how a binary was built. That's typically already the case for distribution provided binaries. Consider for example https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=openjdk-8&arch=ppc64&ver=8u121-b13-4&stamp=1488593057&raw=0 that provides information about used libraries, tools, compiler flags, etc. A more interesting challenge would be to look at changes necessary for producing reproducible builds. See https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/openjdk-8.html for a list of potential issues, https://reproducible-builds.org/ for an overview of the concept, and https://blog.holisticon.de/2016/10/reproducible-builds-in-java/ for general issues with making Java builds reproducible. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From sadhak001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 13:22:21 2017 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:22:21 +0000 Subject: TestNG build failing when built using latest JDK9 In-Reply-To: <20bdc6bd-b4a6-4e30-5358-f78f2b6a28a9@oracle.com> References: <20bdc6bd-b4a6-4e30-5358-f78f2b6a28a9@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Dalibor, That might have been a hard coded string int the echo, if you see down below in the log, it does use JDK 9 EA build 161: JVM: 9-ea (Oracle Corporation 9-ea+161) The latter build jobs report the (echo) message correctly. Cheers, Mani On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 12:02 dalibor topic wrote: > On 25.03.2017 03:04, Mani Sarkar wrote: > > Has anyone else come across this elsewhere when build with > *JDK-9-EA+161*, > > what are the next steps in this case? > > Hi Mani, > > the build log you posted claims that it's > > "Downloading JDK9 EA b88" > > So you may want to double check that first. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 <+49%2040%2089091214> <+49%2040%2089091214>> | Mobile: +491737185961 <+49%20173%207185961> > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Mar 28 14:15:59 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:15:59 +0200 Subject: TestNG build failing when built using latest JDK9 In-Reply-To: References: <20bdc6bd-b4a6-4e30-5358-f78f2b6a28a9@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7cf43ffa-72e9-3edf-a3d8-4723cfbce12b@oracle.com> Yeah, but the latest build attempt fails in an entirely different way: https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/TestNG/lastBuild/console That suggests that the problem is with the environment, for example, or its configuration. Let me elaborate: Just running CI jobs in the cloud is perfectly pointless if you don't control all but one of the variables. In this case, the person responsible for this particular CI job seems to have set it up to build TestNG off a github tip, giving you one degree of variance you can't control, while at the same time also trying to build that with whatever is the latest JDK 9 EA build, giving you another degree of variance you can't control. So instead of being able to have a way to reproduce and analyze issues, by being able to do a before/after comparison with a single degree of variance, you have a bit of a mess where almost anything can happen from build to build, and it gets incredibly hard to figure out what changed because you have more than one degree of freedom. It's like doing causality analysis on a Dr Who episode involving time travel and multiverses ;) So instead, my suggestion would be to configure it to only have one degree of freedom, while you control for the rest. If that's JDK 9 EA builds, then you must keep everything else static, and think hard about when to upgrade what release of dependencies, and how to deal with the additional variance that introduces. cheers, dalibor topic On 28.03.2017 15:22, Mani Sarkar wrote: > Hi Dalibor, > > That might have been a hard coded string int the echo, if you see down > below in the log, it does use JDK 9 EA build 161: > > > JVM: 9-ea (Oracle Corporation 9-ea+161) > > > The latter build jobs report the (echo) message correctly. > > > Cheers, > > Mani > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 12:02 dalibor topic > wrote: > > On 25.03.2017 03:04, Mani Sarkar wrote: > > Has anyone else come across this elsewhere when build with > *JDK-9-EA+161*, > > what are the next steps in this case? > > Hi Mani, > > the build log you posted claims that it's > > "Downloading JDK9 EA b88" > > So you may want to double check that first. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 > | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > > -- > @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog > ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate > (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) > *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector > * | **Bitbucket > * * | **Github > * * | **LinkedIn > * > *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ > > */Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will > come chasing after you!/* -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Mar 28 14:26:45 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:26:45 +0200 Subject: TestNG build failing when built using latest JDK9 In-Reply-To: <7cf43ffa-72e9-3edf-a3d8-4723cfbce12b@oracle.com> References: <20bdc6bd-b4a6-4e30-5358-f78f2b6a28a9@oracle.com> <7cf43ffa-72e9-3edf-a3d8-4723cfbce12b@oracle.com> Message-ID: <87f96f74-3d30-252d-108b-bd8ba7ba9ac4@oracle.com> This particular build issue sounds like https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/1431 , i.e. something that will be fixed in an upcoming release of Gradle. cheers, dalibor topic On 28.03.2017 16:15, dalibor topic wrote: > Yeah, but the latest build attempt fails in an entirely different way: > > https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/TestNG/lastBuild/console > > That suggests that the problem is with the environment, for example, or > its configuration. Let me elaborate: > > Just running CI jobs in the cloud is perfectly pointless if you don't > control all but one of the variables. > > In this case, the person responsible for this particular CI job seems to > have set it up to build TestNG off a github tip, giving you one degree > of variance you can't control, while at the same time also trying to > build that with whatever is the latest JDK 9 EA build, giving you > another degree of variance you can't control. > > So instead of being able to have a way to reproduce and analyze issues, > by being able to do a before/after comparison with a single degree of > variance, you have a bit of a mess where almost anything can happen from > build to build, and it gets incredibly hard to figure out what changed > because you have more than one degree of freedom. > > It's like doing causality analysis on a Dr Who episode involving time > travel and multiverses ;) > > So instead, my suggestion would be to configure it to only have one > degree of freedom, while you control for the rest. If that's JDK 9 EA > builds, then you must keep everything else static, and think hard about > when to upgrade what release of dependencies, and how to deal with the > additional variance that introduces. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > > On 28.03.2017 15:22, Mani Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Dalibor, >> >> That might have been a hard coded string int the echo, if you see down >> below in the log, it does use JDK 9 EA build 161: >> >> >> JVM: 9-ea (Oracle Corporation 9-ea+161) >> >> >> The latter build jobs report the (echo) message correctly. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mani >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 12:02 dalibor topic > > wrote: >> >> On 25.03.2017 03:04, Mani Sarkar wrote: >> > Has anyone else come across this elsewhere when build with >> *JDK-9-EA+161*, >> > what are the next steps in this case? >> >> Hi Mani, >> >> the build log you posted claims that it's >> >> "Downloading JDK9 EA b88" >> >> So you may want to double check that first. >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> -- >> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> Phone: +494089091214 > > | Mobile: +491737185961 >> >> > >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >> >> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> >> Oracle is committed to developing >> practices and products that help protect the environment >> >> -- >> @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog >> ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate >> (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) >> *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector >> * | **Bitbucket >> * * | **Github >> * * | **LinkedIn >> * >> *Come to Devoxx UK 2017:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ >> >> */Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will >> come chasing after you!/* > -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 08:16:54 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:16:54 +0100 Subject: Where to find authoritative release of SigTest? In-Reply-To: <93409aa5-4e41-7f93-8d4a-6851cb289783@oracle.com> References: <050e512b-3974-333e-13a6-d3b2caf855ca@oracle.com> <8d0edd02-2a5c-60ef-47d7-8b00f3d4bbf1@oracle.com> <93409aa5-4e41-7f93-8d4a-6851cb289783@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Is there anyone familiar with releasing artifacts to Maven Central (via their OSSH) who can help here? I'm personally blocking too many things already to pick this up but can help guide something through it. Cheers, Martijn On 28 March 2017 at 13:27, dalibor topic wrote: > > > On 24.03.2017 12:36, Gunnar Morling wrote: > >> It's a pity, though. Having SigTest and others available for >> consumption in Maven Central (or any other repository, or at least as >> a *stable* download file) would greatly improve their usability. >> > > A popular way to contribute to many open source projects is to 'package' > them for consumption in various venues according to different conventions. > > While Oracle doesn't publish binary builds (or push them to Maven, or what > have you), if someone else needs such artifacts, they could arrange to > publish them. In the ideal case, they'd even attempt to coordinate with the > upstream project. ;) > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 08:56:56 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:56:56 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <37c469e0-7913-4d11-3d46-42e8b4255fc8@oracle.com> References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> <37c469e0-7913-4d11-3d46-42e8b4255fc8@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Dalibor, I've fixed the description at https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK - LMK if you've spotted that error elsewhere! Cheers, Martijn On 28 March 2017 at 13:44, dalibor topic wrote: > > > On 22.03.2017 05:16, Tim Ellison wrote: > >> multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has >> already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for >> developers and end users. >> > > There was no work in this Group to produce binaries. > > Groups, by definition, do not have any code repositories of their own. No > code -> no binaries. ;) > > Since https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK appears to claim otherwise, I can > understand the confusion. That would be up to the current maintainers of > that web site to fix. > > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 08:59:41 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:59:41 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Dalibor, On 28 March 2017 at 14:10, dalibor topic wrote: > > > On 23.03.2017 15:30, Martijn Verburg wrote: > >> * A place to try out build infra ideas that might one day be promoted >> to OpenJDK proper >> > > 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. > In short, if you are expecting to see actual source code, rather than just > ideas, eventually flow into OpenJDK, you should look at creating an OpenJDK > Project. 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. > A key idea is that the entirety of the build infrastructure (servers, >> build scripts etc) will be open and auditable so that end users can >> know exactly how a binary was built. >> > > That's typically already the case for distribution provided binaries. > > Consider for example https://buildd.debian.org/stat > us/fetch.php?pkg=openjdk-8&arch=ppc64&ver=8u121-b13-4&sta > mp=1488593057&raw=0 that provides information about used libraries, > tools, compiler flags, etc. > > A more interesting challenge would be to look at changes necessary for > producing reproducible builds. > > See https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable > /amd64/openjdk-8.html for a list of potential issues, > https://reproducible-builds.org/ for an overview of the concept, and > https://blog.holisticon.de/2016/10/reproducible-builds-in-java/ for > general issues with making Java builds reproducible. Yep that's the sort of info we should be gathering in for this effort. Cheers, Martijn > > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Mar 29 12:38:04 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:38:04 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> <37c469e0-7913-4d11-3d46-42e8b4255fc8@oracle.com> Message-ID: Excellent, thank you! On 29.03.2017 10:56, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi Dalibor, > > I've fixed the description at https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK > - LMK if you've spotted that error > elsewhere! > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 28 March 2017 at 13:44, dalibor topic > wrote: > > > > On 22.03.2017 05:16, Tim Ellison wrote: > > multiple platforms. Practically, it's a reboot of the work that has > already been done for a while in this project producing binaries for > developers and end users. > > > There was no work in this Group to produce binaries. > > Groups, by definition, do not have any code repositories of their > own. No code -> no binaries. ;) > > Since https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK > appears to claim otherwise, I can > understand the confusion. That would be up to the current > maintainers of that web site to fix. > > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 > | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment > > -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Mar 29 14:00:56 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:00:56 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> Message-ID: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> 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 -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 14:51:04 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:51:04 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> References: <84E504A5-776D-4239-972C-244BA5EDD981@mycosystems.co.uk> <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> Message-ID: Why is this so difficult? 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? Ben On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM, dalibor topic 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 > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Mar 29 15:13:02 2017 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:13:02 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> Message-ID: 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/contribute/ . 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 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 >> -- >> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >> >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >> >> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> >> Oracle is committed to developing >> practices and products that help protect the environment -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 15:22:35 2017 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:22:35 +0200 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> Message-ID: 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 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/contribute/ . > > 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 >> 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 >>> -- >>> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >>> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >>> >>> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >>> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >>> >>> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >>> >>> Oracle is committed to developing >>> practices and products that help protect the environment > > > -- > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > Oracle is committed to developing > practices and products that help protect the environment From martijnverburg at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 19:30:20 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:30:20 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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/contribute/ > . > > > > 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 > >>> -- > >>> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > >>> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > >>> > >>> > >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > >>> > >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > >>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > >>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > >>> > >>> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > >>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > >>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > >>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > >>> > >>> Oracle is committed to developing > >>> practices and products that help protect the environment > > > > > > -- > > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager > > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 > > > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg > > > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 > > > > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande > > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher > > > > Oracle is committed to developing > > practices and products that help protect the environment > From martijnverburg at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 19:35:41 2017 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:35:41 +0100 Subject: Producing community binaries for OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <51c3cc1c-f19e-a166-9c3b-623e9ee0a2a5@oracle.com> Message-ID: 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/adoptopenjdk) - feel free to ask any questions here, or submit issues over there :-). Cheers, Martijn On 30 March 2017 at 20:30, Martijn Verburg 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 > 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 >> 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 >> >>> -- >> >>> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> >>> Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> >>> >> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> >>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >> >>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >> >>> >> >>> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> >>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> >>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> >>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> >>> >> >>> Oracle is committed to developing >> >>> practices and products that help protect the environment >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> > Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 >> > >> > >> > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> > >> > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen >> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 >> > >> > Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> > Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> > >> > Oracle is committed to developing >> > practices and products that help protect the environment >> > >