Commit responsibilities and Lines of Defense

[Dr Andrew John Hughes]

On 18:08 Mon 21 Feb     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> 
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

snip

> 
> >
> > So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the  
> > existing
> > pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
> 
> It's not clear. The old Sun bugtraq system was closed but we had some  
> ability to expose information.
> The Oracle bug system is very closed, so the requirements have changed  
> with regards to how the open and
> closed interact together.
> Before we mostly worked with Sun bugtraq, some public exposure, and  
> slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
> (and we did a poor job of watching over the bugzilla system, sorry).
> In the future it may be more that everyone is using the open system  
> (whatever that is), and only augmented
> by the closed system when needed.  Bottom line is that this is a good  
> thing for the open side,
> but I have no idea what that open system will be at this time. It's a  
> plan for a plan, and in progress.
> I think when this gets rolled out, other than perhaps people not  
> liking the particular implementation that
> might get picked, the open world will be better off because it will be  
> THE default bug tracking system.
> 

So I take it the previous democratic choice of Bugzilla may be ignored?

> Of course I have to clarify,
>    The views expressed in this email are my own and do not necessarily  
> reflect the views of Oracle.
> 

snip...

> 
> 
> I think if any of these tests become issues, we can address it then.
> Like I said, it may be this event that triggers the discussion on what  
> we should be doing
> in terms of opening up a test, or not requiring a test be run.
> 

I'd rather the proprietary tests weren't part of the open system to begin with.
Waiting until they cause a problem and then waiting for that problem to be
resolved is an issue we can foresee now and could easily sidestep by not
including proprietary tests.

snip...

> >
> >> The primary tests we would run to start with the jdk repository would
> >> be the regression
> >> tests in the repository, at least that's what I was thinking. Adding
> >> in mauve might be next?
> >> The VM tests used are the trickier ones.
> >>
> >
> > That sounds good.  Merely doing builds, never mind tests, on platforms
> > such as Windows, Solaris and Mac OS X will be an advantage.
> >
> 
> To be completely upfront, there is a catch, it's not clear to me  
> whether the actual built bits can
> be returned yet, in amm os-arch cases. That's a legal issue I need to  
> resolve.
> I don't have a problem with it, but I need to make sure it's ok. So  
> initially, all you might get back
> are the build logs and a success/failure indication, I'll work on the  
> getting the built bits back,
> but no promises.
> 

>From my perspective, I'm happy if it builds and we don't get regressions.
The resulting binaries for a system I don't have anyway aren't much use :-)
I imagine there will be some desire for them from other corners though.

> > Will OpenJDK6 also be covered by this scheme?  At the moment, results
> > for it are of greater value for most people than those for the
> > unreleased OpenJDK7.
> 
> I'll allow for OpenJDK6, but we may need to play with what the  
> configurations are
> for building and testing, e.g. the os-arch-compiler combinations to  
> build and test.
> 

Yes, I guess that's to be expected.

> 
> Of course I have to clarify, again ;^)
>    The views expressed in this email are my own and do not necessarily  
> reflect the views of Oracle.
> 
> -kto

Thanks for working on this,
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37