From magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com Tue Aug 12 11:51:59 2025 From: magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com (Magnus Ihse Bursie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:51:59 +0200 Subject: Result: New bsd-port Project Member: Harald Eilertsen In-Reply-To: <0101019848b8e817-4bd4632c-44c5-46e2-9427-2d765f901534-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> References: <0101019848b8e817-4bd4632c-44c5-46e2-9427-2d765f901534-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> Message-ID: It's a bit odd to have a vote concluded as approved with no "Yes" votes (or no votes at all), but I guess the nomination itself counts as an indirect endorsement. /Magnus On 2025-07-26 23:52, Greg Lewis wrote: > The vote for Harald Eilertsen [1] is now closed. > > Yes: 0 > Veto: 0 > Abstain: 0 > > According to the Bylaws definition of Lazy Consensus, this is > sufficient to approve the nomination. > > Greg Lewis > > [1]https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/bsd-port-dev/2025-June/003236.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glewis at eyesbeyond.com Tue Aug 12 15:20:22 2025 From: glewis at eyesbeyond.com (Greg Lewis) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:20:22 +0000 Subject: Result: New bsd-port Project Member: Harald Eilertsen In-Reply-To: References: <0101019848b8e817-4bd4632c-44c5-46e2-9427-2d765f901534-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <010101989ede3fe6-81ba3039-618d-4b26-bb0a-196812d2a01f-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> Yes, it was my thought that my nomination signaled a "Yes" vote, and didn't follow up with an actual "Yes" vote e-mail, so my bad. But it does meet the Lazy Consensus requirements regardless. -- Greg On 8/12/25 4:51 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > It's a bit odd to have a vote concluded as approved with no "Yes" > votes (or no votes at all), but I guess the nomination itself counts > as an indirect endorsement. > > /Magnus > > On 2025-07-26 23:52, Greg Lewis wrote: >> The vote for Harald Eilertsen [1] is now closed. >> >> Yes: 0 >> Veto: 0 >> Abstain: 0 >> >> According to the Bylaws definition of Lazy Consensus, this is >> sufficient to approve the nomination. >> >> Greg Lewis >> >> [1]https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/bsd-port-dev/2025-June/003236.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harald+jdklists at volse.no Wed Aug 27 10:01:37 2025 From: harald+jdklists at volse.no (Harald Eilertsen) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 12:01:37 +0200 Subject: bsd-port repo organization Message-ID: Hi, As we now have a bsd-port repo under the OpenJDK organization on Github, I thought it would be a good time to discuss further progress on the BSD port, and how to organize how we work and use the repo. https://github.com/openjdk/bsd-port The repo is set up so that the master branch automatically track the openjdk/jdk repo master branch, and from what I gather, the normal openjdk workflow for integrating merge requests into the master branch apply. I.e. merge requests in the bsd-repo will be integrated into the mainline jdk branch. https://openjdk.org/guide/#contributing-to-an-openjdk-project As the BSD ports have lived for such a long time as out-of-tree ports, integrating the old patches as they were originally committed to the battleblow repos is not really feasible. Also trying to integrate the full port as one huge merge request will probably (and understandably) be rejected. In other words we need to find a way to break the current set of patches down to sensible changes that we can get integrated with relative ease. I've been adviced that we should also author a JEP that covers the integration of the BSD port into mainline. This will make it easier to get our changes accepted, and also help the upstream project to plan for the changes. https://openjdk.org/jeps/0 I'm not sure how important the JEP is if we add changes gradually, but I'm thinking it won't hurt. Finally I think we should update the bsd-port wiki, but I don't seem to have edit rights for that yet. https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/BSDPort/Main I'd really like to get your feedback and thoughts on this. Take Care! Harald From david.holmes at oracle.com Thu Aug 28 00:59:25 2025 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:59:25 +1000 Subject: bsd-port repo organization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/08/2025 8:01 pm, Harald Eilertsen wrote: > Hi, > > As we now have a bsd-port repo under the OpenJDK organization on Github, > I thought it would be a good time to discuss further progress on the BSD > port, and how to organize how we work and use the repo. > > https://github.com/openjdk/bsd-port > > The repo is set up so that the master branch automatically track the > openjdk/jdk repo master branch, and from what I gather, the normal > openjdk workflow for integrating merge requests into the master branch > apply. I.e. merge requests in the bsd-repo will be integrated into the > mainline jdk branch. That doesn't sound right to me. You merge your project master branch with mainline jdk master but not the other way around. Any changes for JDK master need to be done via PR on the mainline JDK repo. > https://openjdk.org/guide/#contributing-to-an-openjdk-project > > As the BSD ports have lived for such a long time as out-of-tree ports, > integrating the old patches as they were originally committed to the > battleblow repos is not really feasible. Also trying to integrate the > full port as one huge merge request will probably (and understandably) > be rejected. > > In other words we need to find a way to break the current set of patches > down to sensible changes that we can get integrated with relative ease. > > I've been adviced that we should also author a JEP that covers the > integration of the BSD port into mainline. This will make it easier to > get our changes accepted, and also help the upstream project to plan for > the changes. > > https://openjdk.org/jeps/0 > > I'm not sure how important the JEP is if we add changes gradually, but > I'm thinking it won't hurt. If there is a JEP for the port (as there should be) then you can't integrate anything* until the JEP has been targeted to a particular release. * You can sometimes integrate "helper" changes to the mainline repo in preparation for the port, but they generally need to carry their own weight even if the port were not to eventuate. David ----- > Finally I think we should update the bsd-port wiki, but I don't seem > to have edit rights for that yet. > > https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/BSDPort/Main > > I'd really like to get your feedback and thoughts on this. > > Take Care! > Harald From harald+jdklists at volse.no Thu Aug 28 17:41:29 2025 From: harald+jdklists at volse.no (Harald Eilertsen) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 19:41:29 +0200 Subject: bsd-port repo organization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:59:25AM +1000, David Holmes wrote: > On 27/08/2025 8:01 pm, Harald Eilertsen wrote: > > The repo is set up so that the master branch automatically track the > > openjdk/jdk repo master branch, and from what I gather, the normal > > openjdk workflow for integrating merge requests into the master branch > > apply. I.e. merge requests in the bsd-repo will be integrated into the > > mainline jdk branch. > > That doesn't sound right to me. You merge your project master branch with > mainline jdk master but not the other way around. Any changes for JDK master > need to be done via PR on the mainline JDK repo. Thanks for clarifying, my misunderstadning. > > I'm not sure how important the JEP is if we add changes gradually, but > > I'm thinking it won't hurt. > > If there is a JEP for the port (as there should be) then you can't integrate > anything* until the JEP has been targeted to a particular release. That makes sense. Does that mean the entire change set will be merged at once, or do you still want smaller, self-contained changes? Take care! Harald From david.holmes at oracle.com Fri Aug 29 05:29:47 2025 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 15:29:47 +1000 Subject: bsd-port repo organization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4506029d-264d-4542-bec7-e8432f082465@oracle.com> On 29/08/2025 3:41 am, Harald Eilertsen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:59:25AM +1000, David Holmes wrote: >> On 27/08/2025 8:01 pm, Harald Eilertsen wrote: >>> The repo is set up so that the master branch automatically track the >>> openjdk/jdk repo master branch, and from what I gather, the normal >>> openjdk workflow for integrating merge requests into the master branch >>> apply. I.e. merge requests in the bsd-repo will be integrated into the >>> mainline jdk branch. >> >> That doesn't sound right to me. You merge your project master branch with >> mainline jdk master but not the other way around. Any changes for JDK master >> need to be done via PR on the mainline JDK repo. > > Thanks for clarifying, my misunderstadning. > >>> I'm not sure how important the JEP is if we add changes gradually, but >>> I'm thinking it won't hurt. >> >> If there is a JEP for the port (as there should be) then you can't integrate >> anything* until the JEP has been targeted to a particular release. > > That makes sense. Does that mean the entire change set will be merged at > once, or do you still want smaller, self-contained changes? The integration to mainline would take place all at once, but the individual changes would be accumulated in the project repo. David