Commit responsibilities and Lines of Defense

[Dr Andrew John Hughes]

On 18:26 Mon 21 Feb     , Brad Wetmore wrote:
> 
> >>> Definitely.  Making OpenJDK bug DB IDs usable in changesets would be
> >>> a good start (probably involves jcheck...)
> >>
> >> I'll have to punt on that, someone else is working on it, but the
> >> intent is to have a
> >> completely open bug tracking system that also allows us link it with
> >> the internal Oracle
> >> bug tracking system. Once we have that defined, jcheck can be adjusted
> >> to use those numbers
> >> or IDs.  I don't think all the details are worked out. I'll see if I
> >> can ping someone to make
> >> some of the planning more public.
> >
> > So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the existing
> > pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
> 
> Kelly just wrote:
>  > It's not clear...and slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
> 
> I think Andrew was referring to http://bugs.openjdk.java.net.

I was.  I'm not sure what else the phrase "OpenJDK bug database" would refer to.

>  This 
> bugzilla instance was set up to track patch contributions until a more 
> permanent bug tracking solution could be developed/deployed.  That's 
> where we are now.  bugs.o.j.n is still the place to submit/track 
> patches, and I expect data from that bugzilla instance will be migrated 
> to the new system.
>

I never got the impression that the Bugzilla instance was only intended for
stage 1 and http://openjdk.java.net/groups/web/bugzilla.html doesn't read
like that either:

'Goal

To produce a Bugzilla instance in which OpenJDK contributions, bugs
and RFEs can be submitted, tracked, and modified by people both
internal and external to Sun.'

Is that goal no longer valid?
 
>  > (and we did a poor job of watching over the bugzilla system, sorry).
> 
> The expectation was that patch submissions should be made visible by the 
> submitter and discussed on the project team's mailing list.
> 

I don't remember this ever being made clear.  All the Bugzilla page
says is:

'The primary goal of this phase is to further open our development
processes, and prevent submissions from getting lost in the mailing
list archives'

I don't see how having discussion in two different places helps.  I
guess that's why the database wasn't a success.

> bugs.o.j.n was not supposed to track bugs, although some people 
> submitted bugs without patches, and which obviously didn't gain much 
> visibility.

In phase 1, yes.  I don't think it was ever intended that this would be
its only remit.  Again, the Bugzilla group page says:

'During later phases of this project, we will be linking the Bugzilla
instance with Bugtraq'

> 
> To quote Kelly:    *The views expressed in this email are my own and do 
> not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.*
> 
> Brad
> 

I think we can all agree that the Bugzilla setup suffered from the
Oracle merger happening and didn't evolve as was originally planned.
Let's not try and revise history by pretending it was only ever
intended to be a patch repository.

We can use it as a lesson.  If the new bug database proves unhelpful,
it will see the same level of usage as this one.  Making decisions
without open consultation with the OpenJDK community would not be a
good start.  I look forward to things being brought out into the open
instead.

Thanks,
-- 
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