Request for comments: New Bugzilla-based contribution process

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Volker Simonis wrote:
> Sorry for cross-posting, but I think the two threads are related and
> this post belongs into both of them:
>
> Just to name a current issue and demonstrate how complicated it may be
> to follow the development process, lets consider Bug ID: 6622432 (RFE:
> Performance improvements to java.math.BigDecimal):
>
> On the mailing lists, there was a Request for review:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net/msg01095.html
> http://webrev.invokedynamic.info/xiaobin.lu/6622432/
>
> But I couldn't see a changeset for the bug. So apparently it is not in
> any of the OpenJDK 7 repositories (at least I couldn't find it).
>
> On the other hand, the Bug says "State, 8-Fix Available". Brad wrote
> "When the fix is put into one of the gates, the fix goes to "fix
> available" in bugtraq.  It's the gatekeepers who mark as Fix
> Delivered." So apparently, the change went into a closed "gate".
>
> I would guess it could be the "JDK6 RE build" Mercurial repository
> mentioned by James Melvin in another thread
> (http://www.nabble.com/How-to-host-HS14-stable--%28Was%3A-RFC%3A-Change-name-of-default-HotSpot-to-%27default%27%29-tp22053363p22053363.html)
> because the list of fixed bugs for JDK 6u14 b01
> (http://download.java.net/jdk6/6u14/promoted/b01/changes/JDK6u14.list.html)
> lists 6622432 as fixed. But this is in contradiction to the status of
> the bug which is  "State, 8-Fix Available".
>   

The HotSpot code is maintained a bit differently than the rest of the 6 
update release train; the rest of the that release train is maintained 
in the legacy teamware SCM system.

-Joe