From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Tue May  3 08:02:19 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:02:19 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikiHSvjP82mxrNaE53rJesid4iPYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<52FCC3A5-53B4-4677-B4FC-4F5F99AE1B6C@webmink.com>
	<4DB93DBB.8080404@cs.oswego.edu>
	<B6189863-E383-4908-BCDF-83B97A09E79D@webmink.com>
	<BC5672F8AD4C054BAF167C9801500D1A3393D4A5@USSLMMBX003.net.plm.eds.com>
	<4DBBEBA6.208@cs.oswego.edu>
	<BANLkTikiHSvjP82mxrNaE53rJesid4iPYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikn79UfoCkZpKDaUJ1O4CwWEgfcWw@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 April 2011 11:59, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> On 04/28/11 15:06, Ludwig, Mark wrote:
>>
>> It might help the contributors be more patient if they understood why it
>> helps the OpenJDK community to wait for this. ?Neither the minutes from
>> the
>> board meeting nor the ensuing discussion in the last twelve hours really
>> explain why waiting indefinitely is better than letting OpenJDK 8 get
>> started
>> now.
>>
>
> The GB cannot make decisions based on the bylaws if we do not have
> bylaws. Until then, it appears that the original interim rules
> and conventions still apply. This is how some of
> the prospective JDK8 projects (like lambda) have already been set up.
> Oracle could insist on doing the same for jdk8 itself, despite the GB.
> However, if jdk8 escapes the upcoming new bylaws, then primary jdk
> development may continue to operate under the old interim conventions
> for years.
>
> -Doug
>

Can you explain what is wrong with the current conventions? ?I can
think of many things I believe could be improved with the current
OpenJDK project, but the conventions for creating new projects doesn't
factor high on the list. ?I'm not saying the current rules are
perfect, but they've worked for the last four years and allowed a
number of projects to be started by non-Oracle contributors (the
porting project, IcedTea, the Mac OS port). ?I also hardly think you
can claim that lambda is a OpenJDK8 project setup under the old
guidelines as it was setup as an OpenJDK7 project, and is only now
part of OpenJDK8 due to the decision to move it. ?In short, continuing
to operate under the interim conventions doesn't seem a problem to me.

I really don't see how it's better for the OpenJDK project for
development to take place in private internal forks, jeopardising the
future of the project as a whole, than to allow OpenJDK8 to 'escape
the upcoming new bylaws'. ?I've noted that you still do most of your
development outside of the OpenJDK project, so maybe you aren't aware
of the problems that we've experienced with getting Oracle developers
to work in the open and the issues that have resulted from not having
access to some of the early stages of OpenJDK7 development. ?For some
bug IDs, the corresponding changesets are simply unavailable as they
pre-date the repositories. ?It is at least understandable that the
start of OpenJDK7 development is missing, due to the change from a
proprietary development model, but I see absolutely no good reason to
deliberately do the same with OpenJDK8.

I really don't see how this will force Oracle to do anything either.
Most Oracle developers seem to prefer working in private repositories
and on private mailing lists, presumably because it's the pre-existing
dominant culture. ?This is even noted in the minutes; 'Adam disagreed,
noting that working behind closed doors is actually a more comfortable
mode of operation for most Oracle engineers'. ?This is going to hurt
external engineers, like us at Red Hat instead. ?Who knows when we
will get access to OpenJDK8 development work and in what state it will
be by then? ?You're giving Oracle a "get out of jail free" card to do
private development and use this board decision as an excuse.
--
Andrew :-)

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


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Tue May  3 12:28:43 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:28:43 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikn79UfoCkZpKDaUJ1O4CwWEgfcWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<52FCC3A5-53B4-4677-B4FC-4F5F99AE1B6C@webmink.com>	<4DB93DBB.8080404@cs.oswego.edu>	<B6189863-E383-4908-BCDF-83B97A09E79D@webmink.com>	<BC5672F8AD4C054BAF167C9801500D1A3393D4A5@USSLMMBX003.net.plm.eds.com>	<4DBBEBA6.208@cs.oswego.edu>	<BANLkTikiHSvjP82mxrNaE53rJesid4iPYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikn79UfoCkZpKDaUJ1O4CwWEgfcWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e401cc098d$a67ab4c0$f3701e40$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>


Andrew,

This unhappy situation will hopefully last for at most a week or two. If it appears that it will be putting open development at a serious disadvantage, we will certainly review the decision.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Dr Andrew John Hughes
> Sent: May-03-11 4:02 AM
> To: discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
> 
> On 30 April 2011 11:59, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> > On 04/28/11 15:06, Ludwig, Mark wrote:
> >>
> >> It might help the contributors be more patient if they understood why it
> >> helps the OpenJDK community to wait for this.  Neither the minutes from
> >> the
> >> board meeting nor the ensuing discussion in the last twelve hours really
> >> explain why waiting indefinitely is better than letting OpenJDK 8 get
> >> started
> >> now.
> >>
> >
> > The GB cannot make decisions based on the bylaws if we do not have
> > bylaws. Until then, it appears that the original interim rules
> > and conventions still apply. This is how some of
> > the prospective JDK8 projects (like lambda) have already been set up.
> > Oracle could insist on doing the same for jdk8 itself, despite the GB.
> > However, if jdk8 escapes the upcoming new bylaws, then primary jdk
> > development may continue to operate under the old interim conventions
> > for years.
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> 
> Can you explain what is wrong with the current conventions?  I can
> think of many things I believe could be improved with the current
> OpenJDK project, but the conventions for creating new projects doesn't
> factor high on the list.  I'm not saying the current rules are
> perfect, but they've worked for the last four years and allowed a
> number of projects to be started by non-Oracle contributors (the
> porting project, IcedTea, the Mac OS port).  I also hardly think you
> can claim that lambda is a OpenJDK8 project setup under the old
> guidelines as it was setup as an OpenJDK7 project, and is only now
> part of OpenJDK8 due to the decision to move it.  In short, continuing
> to operate under the interim conventions doesn't seem a problem to me.
> 
> I really don't see how it's better for the OpenJDK project for
> development to take place in private internal forks, jeopardising the
> future of the project as a whole, than to allow OpenJDK8 to 'escape
> the upcoming new bylaws'.  I've noted that you still do most of your
> development outside of the OpenJDK project, so maybe you aren't aware
> of the problems that we've experienced with getting Oracle developers
> to work in the open and the issues that have resulted from not having
> access to some of the early stages of OpenJDK7 development.  For some
> bug IDs, the corresponding changesets are simply unavailable as they
> pre-date the repositories.  It is at least understandable that the
> start of OpenJDK7 development is missing, due to the change from a
> proprietary development model, but I see absolutely no good reason to
> deliberately do the same with OpenJDK8.
> 
> I really don't see how this will force Oracle to do anything either.
> Most Oracle developers seem to prefer working in private repositories
> and on private mailing lists, presumably because it's the pre-existing
> dominant culture.  This is even noted in the minutes; 'Adam disagreed,
> noting that working behind closed doors is actually a more comfortable
> mode of operation for most Oracle engineers'.  This is going to hurt
> external engineers, like us at Red Hat instead.  Who knows when we
> will get access to OpenJDK8 development work and in what state it will
> be by then?  You're giving Oracle a "get out of jail free" card to do
> private development and use this board decision as an excuse.
> --
> Andrew :-)
> 
> 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



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Tue May  3 14:10:13 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:10:13 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <OF461B99A3.4E863D49-ON85257885.00484428-85257885.004AC9B4@ca.ibm.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<52FCC3A5-53B4-4677-B4FC-4F5F99AE1B6C@webmink.com>
	<4DB93DBB.8080404@cs.oswego.edu>
	<B6189863-E383-4908-BCDF-83B97A09E79D@webmink.com>
	<BC5672F8AD4C054BAF167C9801500D1A3393D4A5@USSLMMBX003.net.plm.eds.com>
	<4DBBEBA6.208@cs.oswego.edu>
	<BANLkTikiHSvjP82mxrNaE53rJesid4iPYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF461B99A3.4E863D49-ON85257885.00484428-85257885.004AC9B4@ca.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinGbF7nEVG=7h++9nqW=xgkdjD0Ug@mail.gmail.com>

[Please keep to plain text e-mails]

On 3 May 2011 14:36, Jason Gartner <jgartner at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> The new Governing Board is taking longer than expected to establish, and while progress on the bylaws is slower than expected, it seems prudent to get the bylaws accepted and in place ahead of asking for the new Board's
> approval to establish the OpenJDK8 project.

Presumably because only then does the board get the decision on the
project rather than its associated group:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/
So this is a case of the unelected board usurping power from the
existing devolved group system.

> The OpenJDK project has been operating essentially without any rules and the motivation for individuals within the project to behave in a more open way has been non-existent.

There are plenty of interim rules in place that seem to be working
fine.  They have actually proved an unnecessary bureaucratic burden in
some cases, given the tiny external contribution to OpenJDK.  From a
personal standpoint, the creation of more rules, especially by an
unelected board, does not make me want 'to behave in a more open way'
but instead to interact with the project as little as possible.  I
fear these new rules may hurt those already working openly on the
project while doing little to correct the behaviour of others.

> Open behavior should be awarded and closed behavior should be exposed. Without a set of bylaws, acting upon these simple rules is very difficult. I agree it may seem counter-intuitive, but at the moment, we discussed it and > felt that getting a set of bylaws approved is a priority to begin changing this inherent culture within that will take much more time than simply opening a project. Open development, as you noted yourself, is much more than
> hacking code. Bugs, testcases, build, infrastructure, etc are all necessary items needed for open development and something that the board is committed to providing. We need to start somewhere and want OpenJDK8 to start > under the appropriate governance.
>

I agree open behaviour needs to be much more encouraged and is a major
problem within the project.  But the problem there is Oracle, and
preventing them from having a repositories for OpenJDK8 work publicly
may have the opposite effect of just giving them a legitimate reason
("the GB won't let us") to work on a proprietary fork.  Sadly, they
hold pretty much all the cards here.
--
Andrew :-)

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


From hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 21:16:09 2011
From: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com (hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
Message-ID: <764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----

> From: Mario Torre <neugens at limasoftware.net>
> To: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:26:36 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
> 
> > Given we are discussing  governance I suggest we drop discuss@ instead. My 
>comments only appear there,  for example.
> > 
> > S.
> 
> No please, this is an important topic,  valid for discuss, not just
> specific to gb (besides, I don't want to  subscribe to the new mailing
> list in the middle of a thread  :).

I think a whole new list for a governance board is silly anyways. Too  many 
mailing list are just an annoyance. The governance board of  NetBeans uses the 
nbdiscuss list which is the NetBeans Discuss list and  that works out well. No 
separate list needed. Then everything discussing  the project is done in one 
simple place.

Nothing the governance board is going to discuss is not going to be about 
discussing the project. Thus, I don't understand the need for such a list. 
Again, just annoying.

Wade

 ==================
Wade Chandler
Software Engineer and Developer
NetBeans Dream Team Member and Contributor

http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam
http://www.netbeans.org



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Thu May  5 22:18:56 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 23:18:56 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>

On 5 May 2011 22:16,  <hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Mario Torre <neugens at limasoftware.net>
>> To: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
>> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net
>> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:26:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
>>
>> > Given we are discussing ?governance I suggest we drop discuss@ instead. My
>>comments only appear there, ?for example.
>> >
>> > S.
>>
>> No please, this is an important topic, ?valid for discuss, not just
>> specific to gb (besides, I don't want to ?subscribe to the new mailing
>> list in the middle of a thread ?:).
>
> I think a whole new list for a governance board is silly anyways. Too ?many
> mailing list are just an annoyance. The governance board of ?NetBeans uses the
> nbdiscuss list which is the NetBeans Discuss list and ?that works out well. No
> separate list needed. Then everything discussing ?the project is done in one
> simple place.
>
> Nothing the governance board is going to discuss is not going to be about
> discussing the project. Thus, I don't understand the need for such a list.
> Again, just annoying.
>
> Wade
>
> ?==================
> Wade Chandler
> Software Engineer and Developer
> NetBeans Dream Team Member and Contributor
>
> http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam
> http://www.netbeans.org
>
>

I completely agree.  There are way too many lists and the only benefit
of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
everyone to see.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From simon at webmink.com  Thu May  5 22:25:27 2011
From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 23:25:27 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F2179B-A8DE-49A2-AEC0-D73343615E44@webmink.com>


On 5 May 2011, at 23:18, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> On 5 May 2011 22:16,  <hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> 
>>> From: Mario Torre <neugens at limasoftware.net>
>>> To: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
>>> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net
>>> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:26:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
>>> 
>>>> Given we are discussing  governance I suggest we drop discuss@ instead. My
>>> comments only appear there,  for example.
>>>> 
>>>> S.
>>> 
>>> No please, this is an important topic,  valid for discuss, not just
>>> specific to gb (besides, I don't want to  subscribe to the new mailing
>>> list in the middle of a thread  :).
>> 
>> I think a whole new list for a governance board is silly anyways. Too  many
>> mailing list are just an annoyance. The governance board of  NetBeans uses the
>> nbdiscuss list which is the NetBeans Discuss list and  that works out well. No
>> separate list needed. Then everything discussing  the project is done in one
>> simple place.
>> 
>> Nothing the governance board is going to discuss is not going to be about
>> discussing the project. Thus, I don't understand the need for such a list.
>> Again, just annoying.
>> 
>> Wade
>> 
>>  ==================
>> Wade Chandler
>> Software Engineer and Developer
>> NetBeans Dream Team Member and Contributor
>> 
>> http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam
>> http://www.netbeans.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> I completely agree.  There are way too many lists and the only benefit
> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
> everyone to see.

Personally I am happy to restrict my conspiracy theories just to the places where there are probably conspiracies. Mailing list hierarchy abuse seems the very least of our problems here.

S.




From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Thu May  5 22:30:14 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 23:30:14 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <54F2179B-A8DE-49A2-AEC0-D73343615E44@webmink.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F2179B-A8DE-49A2-AEC0-D73343615E44@webmink.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimg0=_3bu60NzscjvHrnDS=P_u-8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 5 May 2011 23:25, Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 5 May 2011, at 23:18, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>

>> I completely agree. ?There are way too many lists and the only benefit
>> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
>> everyone to see.
>
> Personally I am happy to restrict my conspiracy theories just to the places where there are probably conspiracies. Mailing list hierarchy abuse seems the very least of our problems here.
>

I don't think it's true, especially given the list was set up during
the Sun era.  It's more it's the only reason I could possibly think of
why you would want two separate lists.  It's not like either are
particularly heavy traffic.  In fact, most OpenJDK lists only have
traffic because commit notifications are sent to them.

Maybe someone should put some of them out of their misery?

> S.
>
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From simon at webmink.com  Thu May  5 22:32:41 2011
From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 23:32:41 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimg0=_3bu60NzscjvHrnDS=P_u-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F2179B-A8DE-49A2-AEC0-D73343615E44@webmink.com>
	<BANLkTimg0=_3bu60NzscjvHrnDS=P_u-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BEBDA896-7C28-44D2-AC16-21041A9A1CB4@webmink.com>


On 5 May 2011, at 23:30, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> On 5 May 2011 23:25, Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 5 May 2011, at 23:18, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 
> 
>>> I completely agree.  There are way too many lists and the only benefit
>>> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
>>> everyone to see.
>> 
>> Personally I am happy to restrict my conspiracy theories just to the places where there are probably conspiracies. Mailing list hierarchy abuse seems the very least of our problems here.
>> 
> 
> I don't think it's true, especially given the list was set up during
> the Sun era.  It's more it's the only reason I could possibly think of
> why you would want two separate lists.  It's not like either are
> particularly heavy traffic.  In fact, most OpenJDK lists only have
> traffic because commit notifications are sent to them.
> 
> Maybe someone should put some of them out of their misery?

I'm in no doubt that it was a well-intentioned breach of YAGNI that made it happen (probably emulating OpenSolaris where it was in fact necessary due to the overwhelming traffic on the -discuss list). 

S.



From fcassia at gmail.com  Thu May  5 23:55:49 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 20:55:49 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimyBdBTJ=HvUe4-AFYrJ1hR139zZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes <
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:

> I completely agree.  There are way too many lists and the only benefit
> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
> everyone to see.
> --
> Andrew :-)
>

Dear Andrew,

Does your paranoia reflect that of your employer, RedHat?, or are you
writing just on a personal basis?

I ask because if your paranoia reflects that of RedHat management, I?d
seriously reconsider using Fedora...

And you?ve already admitted here that you only work on OpenJDK because your
employer told you so. So I also don?t know if it serves RedHat?s interests
to have someone working on OpenJDK almost against his will...

FC


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri May  6 05:44:45 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 06:44:45 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimyBdBTJ=HvUe4-AFYrJ1hR139zZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110427204523.E5F53AAB@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTimiSQGgamRvw94UXUa+qzdBOHFo2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=LA_dCnBi=5ncGDQN=mwN8A7r3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303982235.3459.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTi=2g6CopXSxZdJ-yHrbmLHYCkox8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QO_GaE_tr=KKf6J2hctf1smqA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303986606.3459.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DB94289.9010008@redhat.com>
	<5678FDFA-AC08-45DB-9F80-52803C6397C6@webmink.com>
	<1304097996.3099.0.camel@galactica>
	<764962.57151.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikgcF745DBHG09ZPP2QR6TdZ3SRYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimyBdBTJ=HvUe4-AFYrJ1hR139zZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=2nOXbw+jv4g2GmdcirF=AOxrK6g@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 May 2011 00:55, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>>
>> I completely agree. ?There are way too many lists and the only benefit
>> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
>> everyone to see.
>> --
>> Andrew :-)
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Does your paranoia reflect that of your employer, RedHat?, or are you
> writing just on a personal basis?
>

I've already stated that these are my own personal opinions:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-April/000119.html
I've also already stated that I don't believe this is actually the
reason this list exists:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-May/000142.html
You're making a false leap from "the only benefit of this list is" to
"I believe the motivation of this separation is".

Regardless, I don't work for RedHat.  I work for "Red Hat".

> I ask because if your paranoia reflects that of RedHat management, I?d
> seriously reconsider using Fedora...
>

I hardly claim to speak for management.  You're looking in entirely
the wrong place if you want such statements from anyone here, and
shouldn't assume that what's said here carries the weight of a press
release.
This is a discussion list for FOSS hackers working on the OpenJDK
project, although perhaps this governance board fiasco is evidence
that you're not the only one who has missed this distinction.

> And you?ve already admitted here that you only work on OpenJDK because your
> employer told you so. So I also don?t know if it serves RedHat?s interests
> to have someone working on OpenJDK almost against his will...
>

I actually said "I wouldn't be contributing to [OpenJDK] if I wasn't
being paid to do so".  Please don't misquote me.  I was working on
OpenJDK before I was employed to do so and so certainly wasn't told
to.  But would I keep trying to work on it if I wasn't being paid? No.
 But I'm hardly the first person in the world to not leap about doing
cartwheels in the enjoyment of my job.

Besides, most of my day job is spent working on IcedTea, not OpenJDK.
The fact that a project that was designed as a temporary stopgap still
exists speaks volumes itself about the success of OpenJDK so far.
IcedTea does have much more of a community ethos, small in number
though it is.

I made the point about working on OpenJDK in the following implicit
context. I've worked in this community for the past seven years, four
and a half of those being prior to joining Red Hat.  Prior to 2007,
that was all on GNU Classpath.  I was motivated to do this on a
volunteer basis (which eventually led to my hire by Red Hat) because
there were non-monetary rewards in doing so and there was a great
community of people to work with.  My point was that this simply
doesn't exist with OpenJDK in its current form and so it's completely
missing out on engaging new talent in this way.

My experience with OpenJDK could hardly be more different, as I've
mentioned before [1].  It may be ostensibly a FOSS project but it
certainly has never managed to garner the community of one.  Just look
at the sheer disparity of Oracle commits to external commits, or the
lack of discussion on the mailing lists.  After four years, there is
still far too little transparency, it's still slow to get patches in
on many occasions and there are still far too many things that are
Oracle only from the technical (bug databases, commits via JPRT) to
the decisions on direction over the future of the project.  There's no
opportunity to work on anything together as a community.  We attempted
this with Jigsaw and it seems to have unilaterally failed.  OpenJDK
work is dull because it consists of nibbling around the edges and
fixing minor bugs and build issues.

I believe the OpenJDK project could do a lot better than this.  If I
didn't think that, I wouldn't have bothered entering this discussion
in the first place.  But, so far, this attempt at governance is
actually taking things in the opposite direction.  Yes, perhaps
surprisingly, it's actually managing to make things worse, and pushing
away the few people who have actually bothered to stick it out and try
and work on this project.

> FC
>
>


1. http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2009/09/08/im-so-tired/
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri May  6 10:43:44 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:43:44 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=-8Fkn2jBwKW9Kk4PwMam2e6y0dA@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 May 2011 07:39, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com
<neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Yes, perhaps
> surprisingly, it's actually managing to make things worse, and pushing
> away the few people who have actually bothered to stick it out and try
> and work on this project."
>
> Perhaps not surprisingly. That may be the whole point of the self appointed
> board.
>

It's more that it may be surprising it's actually possible to make
things even worse than they already were.

> It's much easier if contributions are selected by some upper level manager
> rather than via a meritocratic, community based and open approach.
>
> Mario
> --
> Sent from HTC Desire...
>
> pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA ?FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
>
> http://www.icedrobot.org
>
> Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
> Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
> OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/
>
> Please, support open standards:
> http://endsoftpatents.org/
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From mark at klomp.org  Fri May  6 13:19:16 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 15:19:16 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
Message-ID: <1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Doug,

On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 08:53 -0400, Doug Lea wrote:
> Part of this best-effort is trying to expedite adoption of
> bylaws and revised contributor agreements, as well as encouraging
> creation of per-project process documents, infrastructure
> improvements and so on. It is inevitable that all of these
> will cause a few minor transient snags. But also inevitable that
> they will result in a better OpenJDK.

I am happy you keep optimistic and communicating. Communication was
actually one of the five points that I felt was most important to solve
first before tweaking other things in the governance structure of the
project. So thanks and full marks for that.

> If "transient" turns out to be more than a matter of, say, a month,
> then it can only be because there are some deeper problems. If that
> is the case, the decision will surely be revisited in light of those
> deeper problems.

But I think part of the frustration is that it is completely unclear
what this holdup actually is about. Is this really about fixing those
things that really are at the core of the the unfairness some feel
between Oracle and IBM versus the rest of the community, or is this just
about tweaking things in the margin without correcting the actual
imbalance people see and feel?

Personally I would have a lot more patience and would be slightly less
"paranoid" if you could just tell us whether or not you are addressing
some of the actionable items listed in some of the pervious discussion.
e.g. here: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-April/000120.html

If we get the feeling that at least the core issues are being addressed
then I think you will see a lot more understanding about the current
position of the board.

Thanks,

Mark



From dl at cs.oswego.edu  Fri May  6 13:57:26 2011
From: dl at cs.oswego.edu (Doug Lea)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:57:26 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>

On 05/06/11 09:19, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Personally I would have a lot more patience and would be slightly less
> "paranoid" if you could just tell us whether or not you are addressing
> some of the actionable items listed in some of the pervious discussion.
> e.g. here:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-April/000120.html

The GB prepared a response to previous rounds of feedback that
address some of these, but is also still held up because the Oracle
members of GB require it to go through legal review (sigh).
But in the mean time, I'll try to answer independently from my
perspective.

> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>   People should be able to be members of the community without
>   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>   Oracle.

I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will likely
remain though.

> - Don't tie OpenJDK work to the JCP/JSRs as long as those use
>   terms which are community-hostile/GPL-incompatible.

The bylaws can avoid any *necessary* linkage between OpenJDK
and JCP, modulo harmless dependencies based on JCP
currently defining what JavaN consists of. On the other hand,
some projects may choose to operate using rules based on
JCP expert groups etc. There are not yet any process documents
for any projects, in part because there are not yet bylaws.

> - Create a board without non-OpenJDK hackers or appointed seats.

For now I'll just say: The revised bylaws include several
compromises on this point.

> - Make the infrastructure open to the community instead of company
>   controlled.

The GB is charged with helping to ensure that infrastructure exists,
but does not require any particular company to provide it. We hope to
focus on infrastructure and process issues soon.

> - Keep communicating openly instead of hiding for months and then
>   publishing declarations.

Yes. The now regularly-released published minutes should help.


-Doug





From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Fri May  6 16:37:32 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:37:32 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>		<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
Message-ID: <00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>


> > - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
> >   People should be able to be members of the community without
> >   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
> >   Oracle.
> 
> I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
> at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
> have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
> so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will likely
> remain though.

To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations on this
front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the OCA will happen
_after_ the revised Bylaws come out. If I'm mistaken about that, perhaps
Mark Reinhold or Adam Messinger can correct me.

I would also point out that there is no chance that the OCA is going to go
away. Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate clear
title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone harbouring hopes
that this would change needs to come to terms with this reality.

/mike




From david at davidherron.com  Fri May  6 16:43:50 2011
From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:43:50 -0700
Subject: How do I resign?
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Bm13Kub8Ke5mDmDf2NS8LJ0zL7A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, I have a question which the OpenJDK website wasn't able to give me
an answer.  I've come to a point where I realize I'm not ever going to get
around to contributing anything to the OpenJDK, I realize that I have a
voting role in one or two Group, and that because I'm not contributing to
the OpenJDK that I should not have those Group Member roles.

I'd started to send this a week ago - but the kerfluffle over interim
governance board stuff made me stop and wait a week.  I'm trying to keep
this to the fact that I'm not involved in the project and shouldn't have any
actual roles in the project, but I that I do have a voting role in at least
one Group.  However one can draw a parallel between that and a couple of the
governance board members, for whatever that's worth.

Specifically, I am Member of two Groups:  Porting, Quality

The Quality Group was a good idea we had while I was still a Sun employee
but I was never allowed to take it beyond what is on those pages on the
OpenJDK website.  That's a personal disappointment for me because I believe
the OpenJDK (like Netbeans, Drupal, and other high profile open source
projects) deserves to have a publicly operated quality team.

It's the Porting group where I have some concern, because it has actual
activity and I have to pay enough attention to cast votes occasionally.
 It's possible that I might miss a call for votes, not cast my vote, and
delay something or other within the OpenJDK project.  Weeell, okay, Dalibor
is a smart guy who probably won't miss a lack of vote and he does know where
to find me if need be.   In any case it would be better for my Group Member
seat be held by someone who is involved with the OpenJDK project, is paying
attention, has skin in the game, etc.

I went over the OpenJDK website and did not find any discussion of the
structure of Groups and Projects nor discussion of how to become a Group
Member, what are the roles, duties, benefits, requirements, etc.  I wonder
where this is documented?  And, more importantly, isn't this important
enough to be documented clearly?  It is a key bit to the operation of the
OpenJDK project.  UPDATE: It seems from the discuss at openjdk.java.net emails
the last week the documentation may be in the governance document being
discussed.

+ David Herron
http://davidherron.com


From forax at univ-mlv.fr  Fri May  6 16:57:36 2011
From: forax at univ-mlv.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Forax?=)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:57:36 +0200
Subject: How do I resign?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Bm13Kub8Ke5mDmDf2NS8LJ0zL7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=Bm13Kub8Ke5mDmDf2NS8LJ0zL7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC42880.7020702@univ-mlv.fr>

On 05/06/2011 06:43 PM, David Herron wrote:
> Hi all, I have a question which the OpenJDK website wasn't able to give me
> an answer.  I've come to a point where I realize I'm not ever going to get
> around to contributing anything to the OpenJDK, I realize that I have a
> voting role in one or two Group, and that because I'm not contributing to
> the OpenJDK that I should not have those Group Member roles.
>
> I'd started to send this a week ago - but the kerfluffle over interim
> governance board stuff made me stop and wait a week.  I'm trying to keep
> this to the fact that I'm not involved in the project and shouldn't have any
> actual roles in the project, but I that I do have a voting role in at least
> one Group.  However one can draw a parallel between that and a couple of the
> governance board members, for whatever that's worth.
>
> Specifically, I am Member of two Groups:  Porting, Quality
>
> The Quality Group was a good idea we had while I was still a Sun employee
> but I was never allowed to take it beyond what is on those pages on the
> OpenJDK website.  That's a personal disappointment for me because I believe
> the OpenJDK (like Netbeans, Drupal, and other high profile open source
> projects) deserves to have a publicly operated quality team.
>
> It's the Porting group where I have some concern, because it has actual
> activity and I have to pay enough attention to cast votes occasionally.
>   It's possible that I might miss a call for votes, not cast my vote, and
> delay something or other within the OpenJDK project.  Weeell, okay, Dalibor
> is a smart guy who probably won't miss a lack of vote and he does know where
> to find me if need be.   In any case it would be better for my Group Member
> seat be held by someone who is involved with the OpenJDK project, is paying
> attention, has skin in the game, etc.
>
> I went over the OpenJDK website and did not find any discussion of the
> structure of Groups and Projects nor discussion of how to become a Group
> Member, what are the roles, duties, benefits, requirements, etc.  I wonder
> where this is documented?  And, more importantly, isn't this important
> enough to be documented clearly?  It is a key bit to the operation of the
> OpenJDK project.  UPDATE: It seems from the discuss at openjdk.java.net emails
> the last week the documentation may be in the governance document being
> discussed.
>
> + David Herron
> http://davidherron.com

You can find some info here:
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/

R?mi



From david at davidherron.com  Fri May  6 16:59:31 2011
From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:59:31 -0700
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org> wrote:

>
> > > - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
> > >   People should be able to be members of the community without
> > >   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
> > >   Oracle.
> >
> > I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
> > at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
> > have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
> > so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will likely
> > remain though.
>
> To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations on this
> front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the OCA will happen
> _after_ the revised Bylaws come out. If I'm mistaken about that, perhaps
> Mark Reinhold or Adam Messinger can correct me.
>
> I would also point out that there is no chance that the OCA is going to go
> away. Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
> contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate clear
> title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone harbouring hopes
> that this would change needs to come to terms with this reality.
>
> /mike
>


As someone who helped review the original SCA before it was published - I'd
like to say that from my perspective I don't have any issue with it.  If I'm
donating some code to a project my goal is to improve the project.

The reasoning behind what Mike said is that Su..er.. Oracle needs the
"freedom" to relicense contributed code under closed licenses to distribute
binary closed source JDK's.

I remember writing blog posts arguing along the lines of:  A developer at
some company using binary closed source JDK's to deploy products can improve
future versions of those binary closed source JDK's by sending in patches or
features.  Such developers may not care that their code is being relicensed
because their goal is to improve the binary JDK product.

Sitting with it at the moment there's an additional consideration in my
mind.  Just because someone donates code to a project should they become
part owner of the project?  There are plusses and minuses.  But that's a
rather moot point because Sun and now Oracle always was clear on what they
needed and why.

+ David Herron
http://davidherron.com


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri May  6 17:28:41 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 19:28:41 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304702921.2635.19.camel@galactica>

Il giorno ven, 06/05/2011 alle 09.59 -0700, David Herron ha scritto:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Milinkovich <
> mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org> wrote:

> Sitting with it at the moment there's an additional consideration in my
> mind.  Just because someone donates code to a project should they become
> part owner of the project?  There are plusses and minuses.  But that's a
> rather moot point because Sun and now Oracle always was clear on what they
> needed and why.
> 
> + David Herron
> http://davidherron.com

Hi David, great to hear you back :)

I think there is an important issue here.

First of all, let's consider an extreme case: I had to sign the SCA to
donate Caciocavallo to Sun (question: would I donate it again to
Oracle?).

Cacio is part of the porting group, but now I find that I cannot
re-license it or that if I improperly use it with OpenJDK I can get
arrested ;)

This of course will never happen in reality, but why I cannot have a
grant back on code that I wrote completely by myself that Sun even
didn't contribute in the first place?

Second: the fact is that there is mutual ownership doesn't mean that I
own the OpenJDK code just because I contributed few patches to it, it
only means that I co-own the part of the code that I specifically
contributed. Sun/Oracle is still able to do whatever they want with this
code, but so I am.

True, this is only effective for any non trivial patch otherwise it
doesn't make much sense of course, but what it means is that if I got
included back then (for example) when all of this was the cool hype of
the day, the preference API integrated for GConf or the GStreamer based
javax.sound providers, I had to give them to Sun and say goodbye to all
my rights on that.

It's fine for me because I don't intend to re-license Cacio even if I
could (other than perhaps making it GPLv3), and also, I trust the GPL +
Classpath exception to cover me well, but still, "trust that I'm safe"
doesn't mean "I am safe".

The SCA has another real world implication though, and this is a serious
one: I cannot accept code in Cacio by contributors that do not sign the
SCA without forking the project and getting out os sync forever. You
see, this has nothing to do directly with OpenJDK, it's a side effect of
the SCA.

Cheers,
Mario
-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Sun May  8 16:32:59 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:32:59 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 May 2011 17:59, David Herron <david at davidherron.com> wrote:
...
> As someone who helped review the original SCA before it was published - I'd
> like to say that from my perspective I don't have any issue with it. ?If I'm
> donating some code to a project my goal is to improve the project.
>

Sure, people have no problem with improving the project, that being OpenJDK.
The SCA/OCA have nothing to do with this.  As previously stated, they allow
Oracle to produce separate proprietary binaries that includes the work
of others.

I'm happy enough to release my code under a Free license - but I can
do that anywhere.
Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means contributing to Oracle's
proprietary products and this is why I personally would not make any
significant contribution
of work (as in complete new features like Mario mentions, rather than
fixes) to OpenJDK.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From fcassia at gmail.com  Sun May  8 18:46:32 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 15:46:32 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means contributing to Oracle's
> proprietary products and this is why I personally would not make any
> significant contribution
> of work (as in complete new features like Mario mentions, rather than
> fixes) to OpenJDK.

This is silly. It is like saying one would never contribute code to
Mozilla.org, because due to its original triple-licensing, your code
would end up being part (and it did) of Netscape?s propietary
products, Netscape 6.x - 7.1
based on the Mozilla.org open source code.

FC

-- 
"Tools are a way to amplify our senses so that we can expand our reach
in order to expropiate space, compress time, and secure ourselves. A
gun extends the power of our throwing arms. An automobile is an
extension of our legs. Computers amplify our memories". - T.E.D.
"Space Time, and Modernity" J. Rifkin


From denisl at openscg.com  Sun May  8 18:56:21 2011
From: denisl at openscg.com (Lussier, Denis)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 14:56:21 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik=SrRMqPYW_JPTkrQeGgxaujTKTw@mail.gmail.com>

IMHO it's definitely a legit point of view for an individual to take.
Commercial GPL, where one company gets assigned the copyright, is
something very different than BSD or MIT or non-commercial GPL
licenses.

That being said... I think Oracle is doing a reasonably good job of
encouraging a pretty wide variety of contributors who are making an
"Open JDK" a reality.

On 5/8/11, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means contributing to
>> Oracle's
>> proprietary products and this is why I personally would not make any
>> significant contribution
>> of work (as in complete new features like Mario mentions, rather than
>> fixes) to OpenJDK.
>
> This is silly. It is like saying one would never contribute code to
> Mozilla.org, because due to its original triple-licensing, your code
> would end up being part (and it did) of Netscape?s propietary
> products, Netscape 6.x - 7.1
> based on the Mozilla.org open source code.
>
> FC
>
> --
> "Tools are a way to amplify our senses so that we can expand our reach
> in order to expropiate space, compress time, and secure ourselves. A
> gun extends the power of our throwing arms. An automobile is an
> extension of our legs. Computers amplify our memories". - T.E.D.
> "Space Time, and Modernity" J. Rifkin
>


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:19:59 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:19:59 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik=SrRMqPYW_JPTkrQeGgxaujTKTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik=SrRMqPYW_JPTkrQeGgxaujTKTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304882399.3212.19.camel@galactica>

Il giorno dom, 08/05/2011 alle 14.56 -0400, Lussier, Denis ha scritto:
> IMHO it's definitely a legit point of view for an individual to take.
> Commercial GPL, where one company gets assigned the copyright, is
> something very different than BSD or MIT or non-commercial GPL
> licenses.
> 
> That being said... I think Oracle is doing a reasonably good job of
> encouraging a pretty wide variety of contributors who are making an
> "Open JDK" a reality.

Despite all the criticism about the self elected Governance Board and
some of the questionable high level choices, I also think that Oracle is
doing a good job after all.

This is the reason why I want (and will keep!) pushing in what, in my
opinion, is the right direction toward openness and I don't think our
criticism is silly, even if probably could be worded in better terms at
times.

The GB problem must be solved quickly though, because closing the
OpenJDK 8 development will invalidate all the good job that Oracle [1]
have done so far.

Cheers,
Mario

[1] Especially the programmers doing the real work like Phil and the AWT
team some of whom I had the pleasure to work with for Cacio at some
point.
-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From mark at klomp.org  Sun May  8 19:44:55 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:44:55 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
Message-ID: <1304883895.3578.4.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Doug,

> The GB prepared a response to previous rounds of feedback that
> address some of these, but is also still held up because the
> Oracle members of GB require it to go through legal review (sigh).

It isn't that strange that some legal review is needed for legal
agreements are made effective. But you might consider just
publishing the boards thoughts on it and let people know that
they aren't final before legal feedback has been processed.
Then people can a) actually see what has been and what hasn't
been addressed yet, b) learn something about legal pitfalls
when the legal review is returned, and c) possibly contribute
their own legal resources to help with the legal review.

Since this is a free software project the Software Freedom
Law Center for example can help. And there are other companies
contributing which have some lawyers on staff that can provide
corporate legal feedback to speed up the process.

>> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>>   People should be able to be members of the community without
>>   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>>   Oracle.
>
> I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
> at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
> have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
> so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will
> likely remain though.

I am looking forward to the improvements. The reciprocity is
important, but so is equality and clear rules on inbound and
outbound licensing. I don't think this is a "can happen", but
more a "must happen" to create a really healthy community of
peers.

>> - Don't tie OpenJDK work to the JCP/JSRs as long as those use
>>   terms which are community-hostile/GPL-incompatible.

> The bylaws can avoid any *necessary* linkage between OpenJDK
> and JCP, modulo harmless dependencies based on JCP
> currently defining what JavaN consists of. On the other hand,
> some projects may choose to operate using rules based on
> JCP expert groups etc.

Sure. What I think is most important is that we prevents something
like what happened with JSR336 [*]. Where the open and free code
of OpenJDK ended up in a proprietary RI (which forbids usage for
learning from it and improving OpenJDK itself), the documentation
was turned into a GPL-incompatible specification, with community
hostile terms, and it came with a TCK that cannot be used by the
OpenJDK community.

As long as the JSRs "tied to" OpenJDK projects use GPL-compatible
terms for their RI, spec and TCKs, working together with experts
groups shouldn't be a problem. But that IMHO should be the minimum
requirement for any linkage with the JCP.

At Fosdem there were talks where people said they had wanted to
do work based on some JSR, but the legal terms prevented them
from even accepting the click-through, so they had to base
their implementation on other publicly available documentation,
testing lots of applications and just guessing what the actual
spec would have said because they could use them... [**]

>> - Create a board without non-OpenJDK hackers or appointed seats.

> For now I'll just say: The revised bylaws include several
> compromises on this point.

That sounds great.
Thanks for your work on all of this.

Cheers,

Mark

[*] Not everything that happened with that JSR was bad. A lot
    of good was being done by several individual, it was just
    the legal mess that was a disaster. The positive side and
    the thanks to various individuals are described here:
http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2010/11/28/moving-java-forward-through-the-jcp/

[**] This one for example, where there is a whole slide about
     the problem:
http://www.archive.org/download/fosdem_2011_free_java_the_free_javaws/20110205-fosdem11-the_free_javaws.ogg




From mark at klomp.org  Sun May  8 20:35:58 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 22:35:58 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
Message-ID: <1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Mike,

> To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations
> on this front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the
> OCA will happen _after_ the revised Bylaws come out.

That is surprising. The Bylaws are based on the OCA, they use it
to define OpenJDK contributors and members. They define the inbound
licensing terms for the project as a whole. Since those are pretty
essential definitions in the bylaws it would make sense to me to deal
with them together at the same time.

> Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
> contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate
> clear title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone
> harbouring hopes that this would change needs to come to terms
> with this reality.

The problem is not (business) motivations and obligations themselves.
All contributors have them. And obviously those are different for
all of them. There is nobody in the community who is helped by
unclear titles to any of the "intellectual property" (I assume you
mean specifically copyrights, distribution terms, patents and
trademarks) we all work on based on OpenJDK.

To be honest, your response is somewhat offensive. How would you
feel if some appointed, non-contributor, to the Eclipse board would
state that anybody harboring hopes that there can be a honest
discussion on participation agreements, contributor terms,
inbound/outbound licensing, right grants among members that are
different from "all rights of all members will get assigned to one
specific commercial company for unstated business motivations",
should get to terms with reality?

I think this is a good example of why the current so called governance
board has a bad makeup. It "governs" based on the motivations of a
very select group of contributors. Some of which don't even contribute
themselves. Others are not even bound to the inbound/outbound license
agreements all other project members uses. These people might be very
good at defending the motivations and contractual obligations their
companies have. But there is a very big chance that they completely miss
the motivations and pain of other members.

As you can expect of the GNU Classpath maintainer, I am actually pretty
happy about the current legal setup where everybody gets the code under
the GPL plus Classpath exception, just like with GNU Classpath.
This makes sure that all contributors, and all end users, get a clear
and reciprocal license to all copyrights and patents on the code, which
provides them all the necessary freedoms to use, share, study and modify
the software any way they like. I think we cannot thank Sun, now Oracle
enough for that.

But it concerns me that this is not something guaranteed for the project
as a whole in either the participation agreement (OCA) nor these new
proposed bylaws.

Not only the uncertainty about the outbound licensing is an issue that
I think undermines the community aspects of the project. The current
inbound licensing (only allowed by assigning all rights unconditionally
to Oracle, without reciprocity) is already currently harming the
project.

Some of the following issues are not directly the result of the current
legal setup of the participant agreement and board, but they hurt so
much more because of the unfairness of the current project setup. And
because IMHO neither the OCA, nor these proposed Bylaws protect the
motivations of anybody but Oracle (and their proprietary licensees).

The project could have had a full deployment implementation, applet
viewer, webstarts, etc. integrated to finish the last few non-free JDK
requirements. These now live in a separate project (icedtea-web) only
because the OCA doesn't allow inbound code unless all the rights are
assigned unconditionally to Oracle (not possible in this case, even if
the authors wanted, because it is based on some existing free software
projects). The same was true for earlier efforts of the IcedTea team,
which were just rewritten by Sun employees because the other efforts
were based on existing free software.

The project could have actual free (binary) releases/daily builds, since
thanks to IcedTea we have autobuilders and testers. But when the results
were offered to be hosted on dl.openjdk.java.net they were rejected
because of more legal issues.

Worse, the only "releases" OpenJDK makes (like the developer previews)
are completely unnecessarily under proprietary terms which don't even
allow contributors to the OpenJDK code to inspect them, nor do they
allow users to even report issues to the OpenJDK project [*].

There is now support/ports for embedded and alternative architectures
like arm, powerpc, etc. through the contributed zero and shark code. But
you still need to use the IcedTea code base, because the in-tree OpenJDK
versions keep breaking because contributions are only run through some
proprietary testsuite that don't test the alternative testsuites.
IcedTea does provide at least some autobuilders for ARM.

Again, worse, it seems Oracle is only interested in some proprietary,
out of tree OpenJDK port which also happens to support ARM and PowerPC.
The IcedTea-MIPS port never even got access to the TCK-testsuite.

IcedTea contributors keep trying to push their fixes to OpenJDK in the
hope to have one real common core free JDK project. But then as recently
seen on core-libs, their patches are blocked because the Oracle JDK is
in freeze.

And then there is the constant speculation about the "real" motivations
of Oracle to harvest all these rights of all contributors. Is it because
they only really care about their proprietary releases? Will my free
software project or company be the target of a new lawsuit Oracle
launches because through the OCA they collect all copyrights and patent
claims necessary for that?

If you care about a healthy community around OpenJDK then as a board you
should clarify what Oracle's motivations really are, whether the current
OCA is the only way to achieve their goals (wouldn't simply registering
who holds which rights to what code be enough, then they can re-purpose
code they have all rights to, and simply exclude that over which they
don't have full rights and/or just accept the same GPL outbound
licensing all other contributors enjoy) and how to setup things so that
the motivations of other participants are not harmed.

Thanks,

Mark

[*] More background here:
http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2009/11/14/trusting-companies-with-your-code/



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Sun May  8 22:05:31 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:05:31 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2011 19:46, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means contributing to Oracle's
>> proprietary products and this is why I personally would not make any
>> significant contribution
>> of work (as in complete new features like Mario mentions, rather than
>> fixes) to OpenJDK.
>
> This is silly. It is like saying one would never contribute code to
> Mozilla.org, because due to its original triple-licensing, your code
> would end up being part (and it did) of Netscape?s propietary
> products, Netscape 6.x - 7.1
> based on the Mozilla.org open source code.
>

Just because you don't agree with my personal choices does not make
them 'silly'.
I also personally wouldn't contribute to non-copyleft projects either,
something I already
made clear years ago when Apache Harmony started, so whatever you are trying to
imply with this comparison is flawed.

> FC
>
> --
> "Tools are a way to amplify our senses so that we can expand our reach
> in order to expropiate space, compress time, and secure ourselves. A
> gun extends the power of our throwing arms. An automobile is an
> extension of our legs. Computers amplify our memories". - T.E.D.
> "Space Time, and Modernity" J. Rifkin
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Sun May  8 22:14:51 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:14:51 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2011 21:35, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
>> To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations
>> on this front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the
>> OCA will happen _after_ the revised Bylaws come out.
>
> That is surprising. The Bylaws are based on the OCA, they use it
> to define OpenJDK contributors and members. They define the inbound
> licensing terms for the project as a whole. Since those are pretty
> essential definitions in the bylaws it would make sense to me to deal
> with them together at the same time.
>
>> Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
>> contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate
>> clear title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone
>> harbouring hopes that this would change needs to come to terms
>> with this reality.
>
> The problem is not (business) motivations and obligations themselves.
> All contributors have them. And obviously those are different for
> all of them. There is nobody in the community who is helped by
> unclear titles to any of the "intellectual property" (I assume you
> mean specifically copyrights, distribution terms, patents and
> trademarks) we all work on based on OpenJDK.
>
> To be honest, your response is somewhat offensive. How would you
> feel if some appointed, non-contributor, to the Eclipse board would
> state that anybody harboring hopes that there can be a honest
> discussion on participation agreements, contributor terms,
> inbound/outbound licensing, right grants among members that are
> different from "all rights of all members will get assigned to one
> specific commercial company for unstated business motivations",
> should get to terms with reality?
>
> I think this is a good example of why the current so called governance
> board has a bad makeup. It "governs" based on the motivations of a
> very select group of contributors. Some of which don't even contribute
> themselves. Others are not even bound to the inbound/outbound license
> agreements all other project members uses. These people might be very
> good at defending the motivations and contractual obligations their
> companies have. But there is a very big chance that they completely miss
> the motivations and pain of other members.
>
> As you can expect of the GNU Classpath maintainer, I am actually pretty
> happy about the current legal setup where everybody gets the code under
> the GPL plus Classpath exception, just like with GNU Classpath.
> This makes sure that all contributors, and all end users, get a clear
> and reciprocal license to all copyrights and patents on the code, which
> provides them all the necessary freedoms to use, share, study and modify
> the software any way they like. I think we cannot thank Sun, now Oracle
> enough for that.
>
> But it concerns me that this is not something guaranteed for the project
> as a whole in either the participation agreement (OCA) nor these new
> proposed bylaws.
>
> Not only the uncertainty about the outbound licensing is an issue that
> I think undermines the community aspects of the project. The current
> inbound licensing (only allowed by assigning all rights unconditionally
> to Oracle, without reciprocity) is already currently harming the
> project.
>
> Some of the following issues are not directly the result of the current
> legal setup of the participant agreement and board, but they hurt so
> much more because of the unfairness of the current project setup. And
> because IMHO neither the OCA, nor these proposed Bylaws protect the
> motivations of anybody but Oracle (and their proprietary licensees).
>
> The project could have had a full deployment implementation, applet
> viewer, webstarts, etc. integrated to finish the last few non-free JDK
> requirements. These now live in a separate project (icedtea-web) only
> because the OCA doesn't allow inbound code unless all the rights are
> assigned unconditionally to Oracle (not possible in this case, even if
> the authors wanted, because it is based on some existing free software
> projects). The same was true for earlier efforts of the IcedTea team,
> which were just rewritten by Sun employees because the other efforts
> were based on existing free software.
>
> The project could have actual free (binary) releases/daily builds, since
> thanks to IcedTea we have autobuilders and testers. But when the results
> were offered to be hosted on dl.openjdk.java.net they were rejected
> because of more legal issues.
>
> Worse, the only "releases" OpenJDK makes (like the developer previews)
> are completely unnecessarily under proprietary terms which don't even
> allow contributors to the OpenJDK code to inspect them, nor do they
> allow users to even report issues to the OpenJDK project [*].
>
> There is now support/ports for embedded and alternative architectures
> like arm, powerpc, etc. through the contributed zero and shark code. But
> you still need to use the IcedTea code base, because the in-tree OpenJDK
> versions keep breaking because contributions are only run through some
> proprietary testsuite that don't test the alternative testsuites.
> IcedTea does provide at least some autobuilders for ARM.
>
> Again, worse, it seems Oracle is only interested in some proprietary,
> out of tree OpenJDK port which also happens to support ARM and PowerPC.
> The IcedTea-MIPS port never even got access to the TCK-testsuite.
>
> IcedTea contributors keep trying to push their fixes to OpenJDK in the
> hope to have one real common core free JDK project. But then as recently
> seen on core-libs, their patches are blocked because the Oracle JDK is
> in freeze.
>
> And then there is the constant speculation about the "real" motivations
> of Oracle to harvest all these rights of all contributors. Is it because
> they only really care about their proprietary releases? Will my free
> software project or company be the target of a new lawsuit Oracle
> launches because through the OCA they collect all copyrights and patent
> claims necessary for that?
>
> If you care about a healthy community around OpenJDK then as a board you
> should clarify what Oracle's motivations really are, whether the current
> OCA is the only way to achieve their goals (wouldn't simply registering
> who holds which rights to what code be enough, then they can re-purpose
> code they have all rights to, and simply exclude that over which they
> don't have full rights and/or just accept the same GPL outbound
> licensing all other contributors enjoy) and how to setup things so that
> the motivations of other participants are not harmed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> [*] More background here:
> http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2009/11/14/trusting-companies-with-your-code/
>
>

Thanks Mark for such a detailed and clear argument, pretty much all of
which I agree with.  I would clarify one thing, which is when you
refer to ' the only "releases" OpenJDK makes', you are referring to
binary releases.  The source code releases are just zipped up copies
of OpenJDK and are used by the IcedTea project.

I do think the whole situation with the mixed licenses of different
releases by Oracle is something that should have been cleaned up long
ago.  Could someone please explain in what way it is beneficial to
retain this confusion?  Is it something that is being actively worked
on?  Only on Friday, I was speaking to a lecturer at our local
university who thought they had downloaded the OpenJDK source code
with the proprietary builds Oracle provides, and I had to explain that
the lump of code provided there is not the same as OpenJDK.  I could
understand these kind of issues in the early years of OpenJDK, but
four years in, this should have been sorted out by now.

>From the OpenJDK source code base, it looks like the proprietary parts
of Oracle's JDK slot in pretty cleanly to the OpenJDK tree.  If this
is the case, is there any good reason why GPL binaries could not be
provided, with the option to add on the proprietary extensions
(alternative font renderer, colour management, graphics renderer,
plugin, web start) under a separate license?  It seems pretty easy to
me to provide a default which downloads both parts for the majority of
users who don't care, while allowing those who do to just pick the
Free part.

We do a pretty good job of providing a Free alternative for GNU/Linux
distributions, via IcedTea, but users on other OSes (Windows, Solaris,
*BSD, MacOS X) don't seem to have the same level of support.  There is
only http://www.openscg.com/se/ as far as I can see.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Sun May  8 22:17:58 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 18:17:58 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>


> That is surprising. The Bylaws are based on the OCA, they use it
> to define OpenJDK contributors and members. They define the inbound
> licensing terms for the project as a whole. Since those are pretty
> essential definitions in the bylaws it would make sense to me to deal
> with them together at the same time.

Like I said, I am not 100% sure about this. However, that is my recollection.

> To be honest, your response is somewhat offensive. How would you
> feel if some appointed, non-contributor, to the Eclipse board would
> state that anybody harboring hopes that there can be a honest
> discussion on participation agreements, contributor terms,
> inbound/outbound licensing, right grants among members that are
> different from "all rights of all members will get assigned to one
> specific commercial company for unstated business motivations",
> should get to terms with reality?

My humble apologies for causing offense. However, my definition of an "honest discussion" is one where there is a chance that there can be movement or compromise on the issue at hand. In this case, since I do not believe that there is any hope of that happening, I think it is more honest to be clear. I'm sorry that you find what is meant as candour to be offensive.

> I think this is a good example of why the current so called governance
> board has a bad makeup. It "governs" based on the motivations of a
> very select group of contributors. Some of which don't even contribute
> themselves. Others are not even bound to the inbound/outbound license
> agreements all other project members uses. These people might be very
> good at defending the motivations and contractual obligations their
> companies have. But there is a very big chance that they completely miss
> the motivations and pain of other members.

I appreciate that I am an outsider to the OpenJDK community. However, I am pretty involved in the broader world of Java. I believe that I was invited to be on the GB because I have some very specific experience in constructing vendor-neutral governance. I am confident that I've had a positive and constructive influence on many of directions that has been taken. 

For the rest of your email, I obviously cannot speak for Oracle. However, it is my strong belief that there are contractual obligations which require them to aggregate the IP. At the heart of this issue is the balancing act between the free community and the pre-existing commercial ecosystem. The set of constraints to be solved are extremely complex and compromises are an inevitable result.

I really do appreciate your point of view. At Eclipse we don't use any CLAs and every contributor (corporate or individual) retains full ownership of their contributions. Eclipse also has complete symmetry with inbound and outbound licensing. So that kind of model is what I'm used to, and comfortable with. But IMHO, that is not a realistic expectation here.





From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Mon May  9 06:25:20 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:25:20 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim6rBtOiJ2j0A=L_tVFODHTZ9AK=w@mail.gmail.com>

> We do a pretty good job of providing a Free alternative for GNU/Linux
> distributions, via IcedTea, but users on other OSes (Windows, Solaris,
> *BSD, MacOS X) don't seem to have the same level of support. ?There is
> only http://www.openscg.com/se/ as far as I can see.

On OS/X, I'm providing OpenJDK 1.7 packages (from bsd-port and
macosx-port) here :

http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/

BTW, It's true the level of communication is really low on this 2 branches.
The only messages on the mailing lists are the one from Mercurial notifications.

It's not the way community projects should works, that's a serious
problem for me.


From fcassia at gmail.com  Mon May  9 07:32:03 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 04:32:03 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> I also personally wouldn't contribute to non-copyleft projects either,
> something I already
> made clear years ago when Apache Harmony started, so whatever you are trying to
> imply with this comparison is flawed.

I don?t think my comparison is flawed.

Mozilla (the Mozilla Suite) was originally -and for a number of years-
released under a triple license: MPL/GPL/LGPL. This allowed Netscape
Corp to build a commercial browser (Netscape 6.0 to 7.2) on top of the
open source code, and package it with propietary code if they so
wanted (commercial spellchecker, or the AIM sidebar tab written in
XUL, etc).

So if you contributed to Mozilla.org, your code would not only end up
in the Mozilla 1.x browser suite, but also on Netscape 6.x - 7.x

Now, for some reason you say this approach irks you, and that you want
no piece of your contributions ending up in a commercial product with
a different license.

This is what I don?t understand. I never saw any Mozilla.org developer
complaining that their work would end up being part of the Netscape
6.x / 7.x browser. And that was my comparison.

you said "Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means
contributing to Oracle's proprietary products and this is why I
personally would not make any
significant contribution of work (as in complete new features like
Mario mentions, rather than fixes) to OpenJDK."

Oracle is doing the same Mozilla did for years. Trying to build a
commercial product AND an open source project, both at the same time.
Why can?t they? After all, they?re the one putting incredible
resources (bandwidth, servers, and manpower, aka programmers on
Oracle?s payroll) to advance the project. Why can?t they set the rules
they see fit (like Mozilla) to have an open source project and
release, and a commercial product with a different license at the same
time?.

Please correct me if I?m wrong but you seem to be on a crusade against
multi-licensing, which is at the heart of many open source projects,
including QT, and asterisk, just to name two.

Regards,
FC


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 09:03:16 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:03:16 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 08:32, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> I also personally wouldn't contribute to non-copyleft projects either,
>> something I already
>> made clear years ago when Apache Harmony started, so whatever you are trying to
>> imply with this comparison is flawed.
> 
> I don?t think my comparison is flawed.
> 
> Mozilla (the Mozilla Suite) was originally -and for a number of years-
> released under a triple license: MPL/GPL/LGPL. This allowed Netscape
> Corp to build a commercial browser (Netscape 6.0 to 7.2) on top of the
> open source code, and package it with propietary code if they so
> wanted (commercial spellchecker, or the AIM sidebar tab written in
> XUL, etc).
> 
> So if you contributed to Mozilla.org, your code would not only end up
> in the Mozilla 1.x browser suite, but also on Netscape 6.x - 7.x
> 
> Now, for some reason you say this approach irks you, and that you want
> no piece of your contributions ending up in a commercial product with
> a different license.
> 
> This is what I don?t understand. I never saw any Mozilla.org developer
> complaining that their work would end up being part of the Netscape
> 6.x / 7.x browser. And that was my comparison.

Well no, you wouldn't see any Mozilla.org developer complaining about
that, because they are a self-selected bunch who don't mind their
contributions being released under a proprietary licence.  People
who want all their code to be free work on other projects.

> you said "Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means
> contributing to Oracle's proprietary products and this is why I
> personally would not make any
> significant contribution of work (as in complete new features like
> Mario mentions, rather than fixes) to OpenJDK."
> 
> Oracle is doing the same Mozilla did for years. Trying to build a
> commercial product AND an open source project, both at the same time.
> Why can?t they?

They can, of course, but to describe someone as "silly" for not wanting
their own contributions to be part of proprietary software is, well,
silly.

But please: let's not have a vast rambling thread about every possible
OpenJDK issue piggybacked onto the issue of the GB.

Andrew.


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 09:23:12 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:23:12 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
Message-ID: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>

Taking this off the governing board thread:

On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>   People should be able to be members of the community without
>   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>   Oracle.

Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java.  Oracle
would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree.  So,
the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
proprietary tree would have to be rewritten.  The end result would
surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
Oracle's contributions.  It might make free software developers feel
better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.

Andrew.


From fcassia at gmail.com  Mon May  9 09:26:12 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:26:12 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> Well no, you wouldn't see any Mozilla.org developer complaining about
> that, because they are a self-selected bunch who don't mind their
> contributions being released under a proprietary licence. ?People
> who want all their code to be free work on other projects.

You?re saying that Mozilla is not free enough for your high freedom
standards, because they allow propietary derivatives due to
multi-licensing?. Now I get it.

Ironic that nobody is chastising Mozilla Corp and asking for a fork
due to lack of absolute freedoms from propietary derivatives, yet
Oracle gets all the heat with OpenJDK.

Sorry about the "silly" part, didn?t mean to offend you, as you bring
that adjective over and over again, which I found rather silly, too.

;)
FC


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 09:30:42 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:30:42 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	<3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 10:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Well no, you wouldn't see any Mozilla.org developer complaining about
>> that, because they are a self-selected bunch who don't mind their
>> contributions being released under a proprietary licence.  People
>> who want all their code to be free work on other projects.
> 
> You?re saying that Mozilla is not free enough for your high freedom
> standards,

No, I'm not, and I defy anyone to read the paragraph above and reach
such a conclusion.  I'm saying that Mozilla is not free enough for
some developers, and I understand that view.

> because they allow propietary derivatives due to multi-
> licensing?. Now I get it.
> 
> Ironic that nobody is chastising Mozilla Corp and asking for a fork
> due to lack of absolute freedoms from propietary derivatives, yet
> Oracle gets all the heat with OpenJDK.
>
> Sorry about the "silly" part, didn?t mean to offend you, as you bring
> that adjective over and over again, which I found rather silly, too.

Pardon?  When did I do that?

Andrew.


From fcassia at gmail.com  Mon May  9 09:32:58 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:32:58 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikZL2yPYr4LCOuHYj0gva3vedA5+g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Pardon? ?When did I do that?
>
> Andrew.

SORRY, I?ve just realized there?s two Andrews from RedHat on this list. :)
I apologize for the mix up. I didn?t mean you, of course.

FC


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 09:36:42 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:36:42 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikZL2yPYr4LCOuHYj0gva3vedA5+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	<3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikZL2yPYr4LCOuHYj0gva3vedA5+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7B5AA.20708@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 10:32, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pardon?  When did I do that?
>>
>> Andrew.
> 
> SORRY, I?ve just realized there?s two Andrews from RedHat on this list. :)
> I apologize for the mix up. I didn?t mean you, of course.

That's OK.  Now, everybody, please chill.

There are some disagreements about mixed-licence projects.  These
have always been controversial.  Let's please respect each other's
views, even when we disagree, and continue this discussion with
politeness and friendship.  Please let's remember that we're all
on the same side.

Andrew.


From fcassia at gmail.com  Mon May  9 09:55:25 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:55:25 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <4DC7B5AA.20708@redhat.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikZL2yPYr4LCOuHYj0gva3vedA5+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7B5AA.20708@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikzRRth-ymFQx0=c5e81wWC128L4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> There are some disagreements about mixed-licence projects. ?These
> have always been controversial. ?Let's please respect each other's
> views, even when we disagree, and continue this discussion with
> politeness and friendship. ?Please let's remember that we're all
> on the same side.

Of course.
I only jumped on this thread after reading peace-inspiring comments like:

1."this so called "governing board"

2. "trying very hard not to just have to give up on OpenJDK and /fork away/"

3. "People who want all their code to be free work on other projects."

4. "I personally would not make any significant contribution of work
[to OpenJDK]", and

5. "I wouldn't be contributing to [OpenJDK] if I wasn't being paid to do so".

...which made me think Oracle was getting an undeserved bad rap, and
suspect for a moment that there were hidden agendas at play.

I?ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt, if you say we?re all
in the same side vouching for the progress of OpenJDK as a FOSS
project... agreeing  that Oracle is in its right to dual-license
OpenJDK if they so wish.

FC


From geir at pobox.com  Mon May  9 09:55:38 2011
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 05:55:38 -0400
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <C3C42BBF-B922-4A48-A66A-4315DF271C49@pobox.com>


On May 9, 2011, at 5:23 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Taking this off the governing board thread:
> 
> On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
>> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>>  People should be able to be members of the community without
>>  having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>>  Oracle.
> 
> Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java.  Oracle
> would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
> JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
> to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree.  So,
> the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
> Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
> proprietary tree would have to be rewritten.  The end result would
> surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
> Oracle's contributions.  It might make free software developers feel
> better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.

I think you're right.

If people contributed to OpenJDK under a license that had modern patent language as well as the ability for ORCL to relicense in it's product suite, that would eliminate the need for the SCA.

Obviously, that would eliminate the ability for ORCL to control what others do with the software, but Freedom has its price I suppose.

geir

From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 10:01:12 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:01:12 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikzRRth-ymFQx0=c5e81wWC128L4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	<3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7ADD4.8030705@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikKR8nMwaV3PEGjbeCzBmDiYMs36A@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7B442.3040904@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikZL2yPYr4LCOuHYj0gva3vedA5+g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7B5AA.20708@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikzRRth-ymFQx0=c5e81wWC128L4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7BB68.7000901@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 10:55, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> There are some disagreements about mixed-licence projects.  These
>> have always been controversial.  Let's please respect each other's
>> views, even when we disagree, and continue this discussion with
>> politeness and friendship.  Please let's remember that we're all
>> on the same side.
> 
> Of course.
> I only jumped on this thread after reading peace-inspiring comments like:
> 
> 1."this so called "governing board"
> 
> 2. "trying very hard not to just have to give up on OpenJDK and /fork away/"
> 
> 3. "People who want all their code to be free work on other projects."
> 
> 4. "I personally would not make any significant contribution of work
> [to OpenJDK]", and
> 
> 5. "I wouldn't be contributing to [OpenJDK] if I wasn't being paid to do so".

Well, 3 is obviously true, and 4 and 5 are personal statements and
therefore not open to dispute.  I don't much like 1 and 2 either.

But, when we're tempted to fight fire with fire, it helps to
remember that the professionals use water.

> ...which made me think Oracle was getting an undeserved bad rap, and
> suspect for a moment that there were hidden agendas at play.

I assure you that there are no hidden agendas.  Everyone here speaks
their mind freely.  Sometimes too freely, IMO.  :-)

> I?ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt, if you say we?re all
> in the same side vouching for the progress of OpenJDK as a FOSS
> project... agreeing  that Oracle is in its right to dual-license
> OpenJDK if they so wish.

I have seen no-one dispute that.  The question is not what is their
right to do, but what they should do.

Andrew.


From mark at klomp.org  Mon May  9 10:11:34 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:11:34 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
Message-ID: <1304935894.3723.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 18:17 -0400, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> My humble apologies for causing offense. However, my definition of an
> "honest discussion" is one where there is a chance that there can be
> movement or compromise on the issue at hand. In this case, since I do
> not believe that there is any hope of that happening, I think it is
> more honest to be clear. I'm sorry that you find what is meant as
> candour to be offensive.

To be candid in reply, if you really believe that no discussion can take
place on the core principles of what it means to be a member of this
project, then I think you are just making a mockery of the whole idea of
project participation and governance. Sure you can set this up as to be
a Oracle/IBM duo-poly, which is governed by some cross-company
agreements that don't hold for any other participant and where some
stuff gets thrown around for those who like to do their own thing
(somewhere else), but I hope that isn't the goal.

> I appreciate that I am an outsider to the OpenJDK community. However,
> I am pretty involved in the broader world of Java. I believe that I
> was invited to be on the GB because I have some very specific
> experience in constructing vendor-neutral governance. I am confident
> that I've had a positive and constructive influence on many of
> directions that has been taken. 

And I am sure you do the best you can given you are being invited to
give input and the current makeup of the board. But my point was not
that your input is wrong (it isn't). It was that the makeup of the board
is totally out of whack if you care about anybodies motivations to join
OpenJDK except for Oracle's and IBM's, who dominate the board. Of course
your input and the input and motivations of those particular vendors is
important. But if this project wants to be effective we have to figure
out a way to protect and encourage the input and motivations of others.
I am just saying the current setup has obvious blind-spots.

> For the rest of your email, I obviously cannot speak for Oracle.

I was not asking you to. I wanted to point out some (perceived) pain
points, that I feel are caused by neglecting to protect the motivations
of others contributing to the project. Please study that list of
examples and try to figure out how these things can be done smoother.
And how the participation agreement, bylaws and governance board can
help with that.

>  However, it is my strong belief that there are contractual
> obligations which require them to aggregate the IP.

It is my strong belief that the current OCA is overreaching and goes way
beyond any contractual obligations Oracle might have. But that is just
our believes. Lets find out. And then decide how fair the current setup
is to all participants. And how to fix it.

> At the heart of this issue is the balancing act between the free
> community and the pre-existing commercial ecosystem. The set of
> constraints to be solved are extremely complex and compromises are an
> inevitable result.

You also seem to forget about the pre-existing free software ecosystem.
For many this project is the cumulation and reward of 15 years of hard
work to liberate Java. We have won, that is great. But do we want this
to be the end of the road? Should those that care about moving libre
java forward now retreat again and do all their innovation separate in
IcedTea, IcedRobot, just take the GPLed code and not contribute back?
That would be a mistake IMHO. The motivation of a lot of people in the
free community is to come together and provide all end users one common
set of core java implementations that they can freely rely on. This is
why GNU Classpath was a series of mergers of existing projects. It would
be ironic if now that we have united almost all free java
implementations, we would reverse and start to fork again. Please take a
long and hard look at the participation agreements, your proposed board
setup, bylaws, etc. and think whether they really protect the
motivations of everybody to contribute, encourage those not represented
on the board to participate in and innovate inside the OpenJDK project
without fear that their contributions will be marginalized. It would be
bad IMHO if any outside contribution would be limited to small bug fixes
here and there and people will take real innovations somewhere else.
Lets grow Java's future together.

Thanks,

Mark



From mark at klomp.org  Mon May  9 10:14:00 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:14:00 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304936040.3723.34.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 23:14 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> From the OpenJDK source code base, it looks like the proprietary parts
> of Oracle's JDK slot in pretty cleanly to the OpenJDK tree.  If this
> is the case, is there any good reason why GPL binaries could not be
> provided, with the option to add on the proprietary extensions
> (alternative font renderer, colour management, graphics renderer,
> plugin, web start) under a separate license?  It seems pretty easy to
> me to provide a default which downloads both parts for the majority of
> users who don't care, while allowing those who do to just pick the
> Free part.

Yes, that is the idea behind the "Assembly Exception" to the GPL that
OpenJDK uses. http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html and
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/exception-modules-2007-05-08.html
That allows you to distribute everything under the GPL with the
exception of those proprietary modules. Of course that doesn't work for
GNU/Linux distributions, which will want to use a fully free JDK
distribution, but it can for Oracle (or anybody else) who wants to
distribute all the free code freely, plus some binary blobs.

Cheers,

Mark



From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 10:17:40 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:17:40 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <C3C42BBF-B922-4A48-A66A-4315DF271C49@pobox.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
	<C3C42BBF-B922-4A48-A66A-4315DF271C49@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7BF44.6020102@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 10:55, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:23 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Taking this off the governing board thread:
>>
>> On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>>>  People should be able to be members of the community without
>>>  having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>>>  Oracle.
>>
>> Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java.  Oracle
>> would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
>> JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
>> to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree.  So,
>> the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
>> Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
>> proprietary tree would have to be rewritten.  The end result would
>> surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
>> Oracle's contributions.  It might make free software developers feel
>> better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.
> 
> I think you're right.
> 
> If people contributed to OpenJDK under a license that had modern
> patent language as well as the ability for ORCL to relicense in it's
> product suite, that would eliminate the need for the SCA.

That would be an alternative, but it's only because of the SCA that
it's even possible to talk about relicensing.

> Obviously, that would eliminate the ability for ORCL to control what
> others do with the software, but Freedom has its price I suppose.

I have no idea what this means.

Andrew.


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Mon May  9 11:55:06 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:55:06 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimquOx-v0NdqUmwPmzTXj5c0nKkOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2011 08:32, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> I also personally wouldn't contribute to non-copyleft projects either,
>> something I already
>> made clear years ago when Apache Harmony started, so whatever you are trying to
>> imply with this comparison is flawed.
>
> I don?t think my comparison is flawed.
>
> Mozilla (the Mozilla Suite) was originally -and for a number of years-
> released under a triple license: MPL/GPL/LGPL. This allowed Netscape
> Corp to build a commercial browser (Netscape 6.0 to 7.2) on top of the
> open source code, and package it with propietary code if they so
> wanted (commercial spellchecker, or the AIM sidebar tab written in
> XUL, etc).
>
> So if you contributed to Mozilla.org, your code would not only end up
> in the Mozilla 1.x browser suite, but also on Netscape 6.x - 7.x
>
> Now, for some reason you say this approach irks you, and that you want
> no piece of your contributions ending up in a commercial product with
> a different license.
>
> This is what I don?t understand. I never saw any Mozilla.org developer
> complaining that their work would end up being part of the Netscape
> 6.x / 7.x browser. And that was my comparison.
>

Yes, and I agree with and follow all that.  But I don't see how it has
any relation to what I was saying about my own personal choices in
contributing to FOSS projects.  Sure, Mozilla developers have made
their own decision about what they are happy to have happen to their
code.  Just as I've made mine.  What exactly was your point?

> you said "Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means
> contributing to Oracle's proprietary products and this is why I
> personally would not make any
> significant contribution of work (as in complete new features like
> Mario mentions, rather than fixes) to OpenJDK."
>
> Oracle is doing the same Mozilla did for years. Trying to build a
> commercial product AND an open source project, both at the same time.
> Why can?t they? After all, they?re the one putting incredible
> resources (bandwidth, servers, and manpower, aka programmers on
> Oracle?s payroll) to advance the project. Why can?t they set the rules
> they see fit (like Mozilla) to have an open source project and
> release, and a commercial product with a different license at the same
> time?.
>

They can set whatever rules they wish.  It doesn't mean anyone else
has to contribute to or agree with it.  You only have to look at the
existing low contribution rate and the fact that there is a bunch of
stuff in IcedTea which can't go into OpenJDK to see how successful the
current system is.

They are not trying to "build a commercial product AND an open source
project".  They provide proprietary binaries gratis and are attempting
(and failing IMHO) to run a FOSS project.  I have no problem
contributing to a FOSS project but I do not see why my contributions
should be used to enhance Oracle's proprietary product.  It's not so
much about multi-licensing as about why I should give Oracle
non-reciprocal rights to my work.  There is no benefit for the
contributor in doing this.

I don't buy the resource argument, because it's simply not true that
Oracle are "putting incredible resources... [in] to advanc[ing] the
project".  They have a lot of resources for working on Oracle's JDK
product, no doubt, and they have clear motivations for doing that.
Due to Sun's choice to release a significant proportion of this code
under the GPL, work on it is now more visible than it was before, but
advancing a FOSS project is not the main motivation for this.  Just
look at OpenJDK6 if you want to see how much Oracle contribute when
there is no corresponding proprietary product to motivate their work.
They have one engineer reviewing patches and a few engineers do bother
to backport changesets to it.  But the majority of backporting is done
by Red Hat employees.  This process is inefficient because, as we
don't write the original changesets, we have to try and spot
appropriate fixes going into OpenJDK 7 and make decisions as to
whether to backport them.  If Oracle were truly as focused on the
success of OpenJDK itself as you claim, considering backporting to
OpenJDK6 would be a standard part of committing new patches,
especially when Oracle employees know which patches have come from the
proprietary JDK6 project but we don't.

> Please correct me if I?m wrong but you seem to be on a crusade against
> multi-licensing, which is at the heart of many open source projects,
> including QT, and asterisk, just to name two.
>

Please don't try and generalise my comments.  I'm talking specifically
about OpenJDK, not every FOSS project in existence.

> Regards,
> FC
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Mon May  9 12:06:34 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:06:34 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304936040.3723.34.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<BANLkTikmZ0_zbTsqmwhoKEo0LNPmQUx0qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304936040.3723.34.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimRwV=faA=68Mv-snsJWGKFD2Gp8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2011 11:14, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 23:14 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> From the OpenJDK source code base, it looks like the proprietary parts
>> of Oracle's JDK slot in pretty cleanly to the OpenJDK tree. ?If this
>> is the case, is there any good reason why GPL binaries could not be
>> provided, with the option to add on the proprietary extensions
>> (alternative font renderer, colour management, graphics renderer,
>> plugin, web start) under a separate license? ?It seems pretty easy to
>> me to provide a default which downloads both parts for the majority of
>> users who don't care, while allowing those who do to just pick the
>> Free part.
>
> Yes, that is the idea behind the "Assembly Exception" to the GPL that
> OpenJDK uses. http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html and
> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/exception-modules-2007-05-08.html
> That allows you to distribute everything under the GPL with the
> exception of those proprietary modules. Of course that doesn't work for
> GNU/Linux distributions, which will want to use a fully free JDK
> distribution, but it can for Oracle (or anybody else) who wants to
> distribute all the free code freely, plus some binary blobs.
>

Yes, precisely, there is both the technical and legal means to provide the GPL
components separate from the proprietary ones.  But Oracle don't.  I'd
be interested
to know why not.

All not doing so seems to create is confusion.

> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Mon May  9 12:21:24 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:21:24 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2011 10:23, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> Taking this off the governing board thread:
>
> On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>> ? People should be able to be members of the community without
>> ? having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>> ? Oracle.
>
> Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java. ?Oracle
> would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
> JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
> to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree. ?So,
> the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
> Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
> proprietary tree would have to be rewritten. ?The end result would
> surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
> Oracle's contributions. ?It might make free software developers feel
> better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.
>
> Andrew.
>


But the other side of the coin is that the OCA is a clear barrier to
contributions from outside Oracle, whether it's a case that someone
doesn't want to hand over copyright to Oracle or they simply don't
have the rights to hand over.  There's plenty of stuff in IcedTea that
will stay there for the foreseeable future because we don't have the
rights to give them to Oracle.  Nor is there really any motivation to
do so.

As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
technically and legally possible AFAICS, but it does require a little
work initially.  The benefit far outweighs this initial outlay though,
as you'd be able to get rid of the OCA and actually start to make
OpenJDK into a proper FOSS project.  It goes a bit further than making
"free software developers feel better" and actually removes a huge
barrier for entry into the project.

I agree that with the present setup, Oracle would end up not
contributing to OpenJDK.  The fact that it would wither without them
just shows how unhealthy this project is in the first place.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From fcassia at gmail.com  Mon May  9 12:23:03 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:23:03 -0300
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimquOx-v0NdqUmwPmzTXj5c0nKkOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu> <3279728728107861781@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTi=3kbp9J20UNDTdsySMdqfgsrH_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhCo-A65gM0hhU7jttVaVbsYaqMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimuLXn_XrEMmwsrbDA2R1FUFe5iEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimfT2GphuXNPo1jdq5m-Bw7P3v16g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=kYDtdTrMb85Bk=vThO67u7RyeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimquOx-v0NdqUmwPmzTXj5c0nKkOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimzo4G7KOT=3EY6imEmAL9G6cCiKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> . ?It's not so
> much about multi-licensing as about why I should give Oracle
> non-reciprocal rights to my work. ?There is no benefit for the
> contributor in doing this.

There?s no benefit??

If you enhance OpenJDK, you enhance OpenJDK *and* Oracle?s propietary Java.
You don?t care / hate propietary software, fine, don?t care about it,
but don?t tell me you wouldn?t help OpenJDK too in the process.

But you withholding contributions to BOTH OpenJDK *and* propietary
Java because of dogmatic reasons is for the benefit of who?.

FC


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 12:36:16 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:36:16 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7DFC0.1010103@redhat.com>

On 05/09/2011 01:21 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 9 May 2011 10:23, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Taking this off the governing board thread:
>>
>> On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>> - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
>>>   People should be able to be members of the community without
>>>   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
>>>   Oracle.
>>
>> Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java.  Oracle
>> would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
>> JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
>> to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree.  So,
>> the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
>> Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
>> proprietary tree would have to be rewritten.  The end result would
>> surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
>> Oracle's contributions.  It might make free software developers feel
>> better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.
> 
> But the other side of the coin is that the OCA is a clear barrier to
> contributions from outside Oracle, whether it's a case that someone
> doesn't want to hand over copyright to Oracle or they simply don't
> have the rights to hand over.

That's true.  There is no doubt that the SCA is a barrier to some
contributors.

> As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
> out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
> clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
> technically and legally possible AFAICS, but it does require a little
> work initially.  The benefit far outweighs this initial outlay though,
> as you'd be able to get rid of the OCA

I don't think you would.  I don't think it would make any difference
to the core issue, as I described above.  Improvements to the VM, for
example, can't be separated into proprietary blobs.

> and actually start to make OpenJDK into a proper FOSS project.

> It goes a bit further than making "free software developers feel
> better" and actually removes a huge barrier for entry into the
> project.

It does, but this is insignificant when compared with the problems
that would be caused by forking.  The question is simply whether the
pain of maintaining a non-proprietary fork would be justified by the
amount of new software that would be contributed.

> I agree that with the present setup, Oracle would end up not
> contributing to OpenJDK.  The fact that it would wither without them
> just shows how unhealthy this project is in the first place.

Not necessarily: it shows that their contribution is huge, for sure.

Andrew.


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Mon May  9 13:32:19 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:32:19 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <4DC7DFC0.1010103@redhat.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC7DFC0.1010103@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAJaNFAjD2S8DwRhNp5x4=eQyH_w@mail.gmail.com>

>

snip...

>> As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
>> out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
>> clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in. ?That's both
>> technically and legally possible AFAICS, but it does require a little
>> work initially. ?The benefit far outweighs this initial outlay though,
>> as you'd be able to get rid of the OCA
>
> I don't think you would. ?I don't think it would make any difference
> to the core issue, as I described above. ?Improvements to the VM, for
> example, can't be separated into proprietary blobs.
>

Ok, so what you're actually saying is not that you couldn't drop the OCA
in such a situation, but that you couldn't get to such a situation in the first
place because the necessary prerequisite of separating the proprietary
blobs isn't possible.

On that, I can only make superstitions.  Only Oracle know what they bundle
with their proprietary VM that's not part of OpenJDK.

>> and actually start to make OpenJDK into a proper FOSS project.
>
>> It goes a bit further than making "free software developers feel
>> better" and actually removes a huge barrier for entry into the
>> project.
>
> It does, but this is insignificant when compared with the problems
> that would be caused by forking. ?The question is simply whether the
> pain of maintaining a non-proprietary fork would be justified by the
> amount of new software that would be contributed.
>

Either way, you'll get forks.  For me, the current status quo actually
works fine, with OpenJDK as an upstream and real work going on in
IcedTea.  It means OpenJDK naturally fails at being the single source
of Free Java development though, which I get the impression some
people seem to want.

>
> Andrew.
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May  9 13:42:58 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 14:42:58 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAJaNFAjD2S8DwRhNp5x4=eQyH_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>	<BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>	<4DC7DFC0.1010103@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTinAJaNFAjD2S8DwRhNp5x4=eQyH_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7EF62.8040300@redhat.com>

On 05/09/2011 02:32 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 
> snip...
> 
>>> As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
>>> out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
>>> clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
>>> technically and legally possible AFAICS, but it does require a little
>>> work initially.  The benefit far outweighs this initial outlay though,
>>> as you'd be able to get rid of the OCA
>>
>> I don't think you would.  I don't think it would make any difference
>> to the core issue, as I described above.  Improvements to the VM, for
>> example, can't be separated into proprietary blobs.
> 
> Ok, so what you're actually saying is not that you couldn't drop the OCA
> in such a situation, but that you couldn't get to such a situation in the first
> place because the necessary prerequisite of separating the proprietary
> blobs isn't possible.

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that dropping the SCA would force
a separate fork on Oracle's developers, and they'd then have two sets
of sources, one of which couldn't be used on some proprietary
projects.  This would be a second-class citizen, and that would be
very bad for free Java because much of the really interesting stuff
would probably happen in the proprietary tree.

In other words, the SCA is what you have to pay to keep Oracle's work
on OpenJDK open.

> On that, I can only make superstitions.  Only Oracle know what they bundle
> with their proprietary VM that's not part of OpenJDK.

I don't see why that's relevant.

>>> and actually start to make OpenJDK into a proper FOSS project.
>>
>>> It goes a bit further than making "free software developers feel
>>> better" and actually removes a huge barrier for entry into the
>>> project.
>>
>> It does, but this is insignificant when compared with the problems
>> that would be caused by forking.  The question is simply whether the
>> pain of maintaining a non-proprietary fork would be justified by the
>> amount of new software that would be contributed.
> 
> Either way, you'll get forks.

I hope not.  We'll see.  [What we have ATM is not a fork, IMO.]

> For me, the current status quo actually works fine, with OpenJDK as
> an upstream and real work going on in IcedTea.  It means OpenJDK
> naturally fails at being the single source of Free Java development
> though, which I get the impression some people seem to want.

Well, it's a shame, but it may well be the least bad option.

Andrew.


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Mon May  9 13:53:06 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:53:06 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304935894.3723.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>	
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304935894.3723.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <005e01cc0e50$6ddb6890$499239b0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>

Mark,

I believe that we have now reached the point in this conversation where we respectfully agree to disagree.

Best regards,

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:mark at klomp.org]
> Sent: May-09-11 6:12 AM
> To: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org
> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
> 
> On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 18:17 -0400, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> > My humble apologies for causing offense. However, my definition of an
> > "honest discussion" is one where there is a chance that there can be
> > movement or compromise on the issue at hand. In this case, since I do
> > not believe that there is any hope of that happening, I think it is
> > more honest to be clear. I'm sorry that you find what is meant as
> > candour to be offensive.
> 
> To be candid in reply, if you really believe that no discussion can take
> place on the core principles of what it means to be a member of this
> project, then I think you are just making a mockery of the whole idea of
> project participation and governance. Sure you can set this up as to be
> a Oracle/IBM duo-poly, which is governed by some cross-company
> agreements that don't hold for any other participant and where some
> stuff gets thrown around for those who like to do their own thing
> (somewhere else), but I hope that isn't the goal.
> 
> > I appreciate that I am an outsider to the OpenJDK community. However,
> > I am pretty involved in the broader world of Java. I believe that I
> > was invited to be on the GB because I have some very specific
> > experience in constructing vendor-neutral governance. I am confident
> > that I've had a positive and constructive influence on many of
> > directions that has been taken.
> 
> And I am sure you do the best you can given you are being invited to
> give input and the current makeup of the board. But my point was not
> that your input is wrong (it isn't). It was that the makeup of the board
> is totally out of whack if you care about anybodies motivations to join
> OpenJDK except for Oracle's and IBM's, who dominate the board. Of course
> your input and the input and motivations of those particular vendors is
> important. But if this project wants to be effective we have to figure
> out a way to protect and encourage the input and motivations of others.
> I am just saying the current setup has obvious blind-spots.
> 
> > For the rest of your email, I obviously cannot speak for Oracle.
> 
> I was not asking you to. I wanted to point out some (perceived) pain
> points, that I feel are caused by neglecting to protect the motivations
> of others contributing to the project. Please study that list of
> examples and try to figure out how these things can be done smoother.
> And how the participation agreement, bylaws and governance board can
> help with that.
> 
> >  However, it is my strong belief that there are contractual
> > obligations which require them to aggregate the IP.
> 
> It is my strong belief that the current OCA is overreaching and goes way
> beyond any contractual obligations Oracle might have. But that is just
> our believes. Lets find out. And then decide how fair the current setup
> is to all participants. And how to fix it.
> 
> > At the heart of this issue is the balancing act between the free
> > community and the pre-existing commercial ecosystem. The set of
> > constraints to be solved are extremely complex and compromises are an
> > inevitable result.
> 
> You also seem to forget about the pre-existing free software ecosystem.
> For many this project is the cumulation and reward of 15 years of hard
> work to liberate Java. We have won, that is great. But do we want this
> to be the end of the road? Should those that care about moving libre
> java forward now retreat again and do all their innovation separate in
> IcedTea, IcedRobot, just take the GPLed code and not contribute back?
> That would be a mistake IMHO. The motivation of a lot of people in the
> free community is to come together and provide all end users one common
> set of core java implementations that they can freely rely on. This is
> why GNU Classpath was a series of mergers of existing projects. It would
> be ironic if now that we have united almost all free java
> implementations, we would reverse and start to fork again. Please take a
> long and hard look at the participation agreements, your proposed board
> setup, bylaws, etc. and think whether they really protect the
> motivations of everybody to contribute, encourage those not represented
> on the board to participate in and innovate inside the OpenJDK project
> without fear that their contributions will be marginalized. It would be
> bad IMHO if any outside contribution would be limited to small bug fixes
> here and there and people will take real innovations somewhere else.
> Lets grow Java's future together.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark



From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Mon May  9 16:36:26 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:36:26 -0700
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org; Mon, 09 May 2011 13:21:24 BST;
	<BANLkTimjuL8SzBZ4bMtX286Qn2AbnsS_ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110509163626.0D116A38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/5/9 5:21 -0700, gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org:
> ...
> 
> As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
> out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
> clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
> technically and legally possible AFAICS, ...

No, it is not.

Oracle has long-term contractual commitments to deliver JDK source code
under a proprietary commercial license to various partner companies who
would not, under any circumstances, accept GPL-licensed code.

These partners are vital members of the overall Java ecosystem: They do
the heavy lifting of porting the JDK to a wide variety of architectures
and operating systems.  This work is of value to themselves and their
customers, obviously, but it indirectly benefits everyone by ensuring
the ubiquity of the Java platform.

- Mark


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Mon May  9 18:16:35 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:16:35 +0200
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <005e01cc0e50$6ddb6890$499239b0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304935894.3723.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<005e01cc0e50$6ddb6890$499239b0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
Message-ID: <1304964995.3212.46.camel@galactica>

Il giorno lun, 09/05/2011 alle 09.53 -0400, Mike Milinkovich ha scritto:
> Mark,
> 
> I believe that we have now reached the point in this conversation where we respectfully agree to disagree.
> 
> Best regards,

This is, of course, very legitimate and respected. But I hope you will
at least listen to our complains, because they are honestly meant for
the best.

Oracle has a precedent in this, and things didn't go very well for
Oracle, we are trying to avoid to find ourselves in the same situation.

Mario
-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Mon May  9 18:22:26 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:22:26 +0200
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1304965346.3212.51.camel@galactica>

Il giorno lun, 09/05/2011 alle 10.23 +0100, Andrew Haley ha scritto:
> Taking this off the governing board thread:
> 
> On 28/04/11 11:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> > - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
> >   People should be able to be members of the community without
> >   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
> >   Oracle.
> 
> Personally, I think this would be a disaster for free Java.  Oracle
> would continue their proprietary projects, making improvements to the
> JDK, but would have to firewall contributions from the wider community
> to make sure that they didn't get in to the proprietary JDK tree.  So,
> the OpenJDK and JDK trees would have to be isolated from each other.
> Any contributions from the community that were needed in the
> proprietary tree would have to be rewritten.  The end result would
> surely be that OpenJDK would be orphaned, and would wither without
> Oracle's contributions.  It might make free software developers feel
> better, but it would push users back to using proprietary Java.
> 
> Andrew.

I support this, although I think the terms of the OCA [1] should be made
nicer to attract contributions. We have joint Copyright assignment on
GNU Classpath too, and this one was never a problem, if a better and
clear wording is used, especially resolving the unbalanced symmetry on
the deal, I'm sure we will have no more issues to accept it as well.

Cheers,
Mario

[1] which in Italian means duck :)
-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Mon May  9 18:34:03 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:34:03 +0200
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <20110509163626.0D116A38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20110509163626.0D116A38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <1304966043.3212.59.camel@galactica>

Il giorno lun, 09/05/2011 alle 09.36 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com ha
scritto:
> 2011/5/9 5:21 -0700, gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org:
> > ...
> > 
> > As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
> > out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
> > clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
> > technically and legally possible AFAICS, ...
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Oracle has long-term contractual commitments to deliver JDK source code
> under a proprietary commercial license to various partner companies who
> would not, under any circumstances, accept GPL-licensed code.
> 
> These partners are vital members of the overall Java ecosystem: They do
> the heavy lifting of porting the JDK to a wide variety of architectures
> and operating systems.  This work is of value to themselves and their
> customers, obviously, but it indirectly benefits everyone by ensuring
> the ubiquity of the Java platform.
> 
> - Mark

Hi Mark,

You, of course, are talking (among others) about Nokia and IBM and their
contractors here, with the very locked and closed Java ME.

This is acceptable, after all, they did pay to get the TCK. Although I
strongly disagree on the "They do the heavy lifting of porting the JDK
to a wide variety of architectures and operating systems", because this
is happening anyway, outside the TCK, people just don't call it Java.

Then suddenly something like Android comes and literally shakes the
market (which is good in some sense, but...).

I was always of the opinion that having a simpler and more open sets of
rules would have avoided the Android treat, and I speak as one of the
guys that would love to see Android being just a cool Java framework and
not an alternative to java, perhaps governed by a JSR. Ah, and that
brings yet another issue...

Cheers,
Mario
-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Mon May  9 18:45:26 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:45:26 -0700
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: neugens.limasoftware@gmail.com; Mon, 09 May 2011 20:34:03 +0200; 
	<1304966043.3212.59.camel@galactica>
Message-ID: <20110509184526.EF97AA38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/5/9 11:34 -0700, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com:
> You, of course, are talking (among others) about Nokia and IBM and their
> contractors here, with the very locked and closed Java ME.

No, I'm not talking about Java ME at all, just Java SE and the JDK.

> This is acceptable, after all, they did pay to get the TCK. Although I
> strongly disagree on the "They do the heavy lifting of porting the JDK
> to a wide variety of architectures and operating systems", because this
> is happening anyway, outside the TCK, people just don't call it Java.

I didn't mean to imply that these companies are the only ones doing such
porting work.  Of course there are others, and some bother with the TCK,
and some don't.

- Mark


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Mon May  9 19:33:08 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:33:08 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <1304965346.3212.51.camel@galactica>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com>
	<1304965346.3212.51.camel@galactica>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kdv5JDQzi9chHp6MgsdeSoo4gCg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2011 19:22, Mario Torre <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:

snip...

> I support this, although I think the terms of the OCA [1] should be made
> nicer to attract contributions. We have joint Copyright assignment on
> GNU Classpath too, and this one was never a problem, if a better and
> clear wording is used, especially resolving the unbalanced symmetry on
> the deal, I'm sure we will have no more issues to accept it as well.
>

Comparing the OCA with the FSF copyright assignment is a bit like
comparing apples with oranges.  Sure, they are both fruit, but that's
about where the similarity ends.  The FSF assignment is fully
reciprocal and assigns rights to a charity in order to aid in any
potential legal defense of the code.  The OCA gives rights to Oracle,
a corporation who, by definition, need to make money. It's needed by
them in order to produce proprietary binaries and retain control, but
it doesn't provide any benefits to the original author.

> Cheers,
> Mario
>
> [1] which in Italian means duck :)
> --
> pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA ?FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
>
> IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
> Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
> Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
> OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/
>
> Please, support open standards:
> http://endsoftpatents.org/
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:48:30 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 21:48:30 +0200
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kdv5JDQzi9chHp6MgsdeSoo4gCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com> <1304965346.3212.51.camel@galactica>
	<BANLkTi=kdv5JDQzi9chHp6MgsdeSoo4gCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304970510.3212.71.camel@galactica>

Il giorno lun, 09/05/2011 alle 20.33 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes ha
scritto:
> On 9 May 2011 19:22, Mario Torre <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> snip...
> 
> > I support this, although I think the terms of the OCA [1] should be made
> > nicer to attract contributions. We have joint Copyright assignment on
> > GNU Classpath too, and this one was never a problem, if a better and
> > clear wording is used, especially resolving the unbalanced symmetry on
> > the deal, I'm sure we will have no more issues to accept it as well.
> >
> 
> Comparing the OCA with the FSF copyright assignment is a bit like
> comparing apples with oranges.  Sure, they are both fruit, but that's
> about where the similarity ends.  The FSF assignment is fully
> reciprocal and assigns rights to a charity in order to aid in any
> potential legal defense of the code.  The OCA gives rights to Oracle,
> a corporation who, by definition, need to make money. It's needed by
> them in order to produce proprietary binaries and retain control, but
> it doesn't provide any benefits to the original author.

Yep, this is what I mean, to make the OCA comparable to the FSF
agreement. At least, it would be probably enough to get the reciprocity
of the deal to consider it with better eyes.

Cheers,
Mario

-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/



From simon at webmink.com  Mon May  9 19:54:25 2011
From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:54:25 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kdv5JDQzi9chHp6MgsdeSoo4gCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC7B280.30600@redhat.com> <1304965346.3212.51.camel@galactica>
	<BANLkTi=kdv5JDQzi9chHp6MgsdeSoo4gCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9C11C6FE-1BAB-434B-8031-F5A2B06051D8@webmink.com>


On 9 May 2011, at 20:33, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 
> The FSF assignment is fully
> reciprocal and assigns rights to a charity in order to aid in any
> potential legal defense of the code.  

Do you have a pointer to the FSF assignment so we can all read it please? I can't find an FSF-hosted or recent copy (although I admit I'm not a search wizard).

S.




From aph at redhat.com  Tue May 10 08:06:37 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:06:37 +0100
Subject: On the role of the SCA
In-Reply-To: <20110509163626.0D116A38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20110509163626.0D116A38@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <4DC8F20D.9090701@redhat.com>

On 09/05/11 17:36, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2011/5/9 5:21 -0700, gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org:
>> ...
>>
>> As I mentioned in the previous thread, much of this could be sorted
>> out if Oracle simply cleaned up their binaries so that there was a
>> clear GPL component with proprietary blobs to plug in.  That's both
>> technically and legally possible AFAICS, ...
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Oracle has long-term contractual commitments to deliver JDK source code
> under a proprietary commercial license to various partner companies who
> would not, under any circumstances, accept GPL-licensed code.
> 
> These partners are vital members of the overall Java ecosystem: They do
> the heavy lifting of porting the JDK to a wide variety of architectures
> and operating systems.  This work is of value to themselves and their
> customers, obviously, but it indirectly benefits everyone by ensuring
> the ubiquity of the Java platform.

That's a good point I hadn't considered.  It's really easy for those
of us who work only on free software to forget that the Java community
extends far beyond just free Java.

Andrew.


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Tue May 10 14:41:01 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:41:01 -0400
Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
In-Reply-To: <1304964995.3212.46.camel@galactica>
References: <4dc397c3.4c8cd80a.09b2.ffff9b33@mx.google.com>	
	<4DC3EF4A.7010105@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<1304687956.3454.21.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<4DC3FE46.4060507@cs.oswego.edu>	
	<00d401cc0c0b$e7235dd0$b56a1970$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>	
	<1304886958.3578.46.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<003201cc0dcd$caf851b0$60e8f510$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>	
	<1304935894.3723.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	
	<005e01cc0e50$6ddb6890$499239b0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>
	<1304964995.3212.46.camel@galactica>
Message-ID: <016801cc0f20$4c7b4960$e571dc20$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>



> This is, of course, very legitimate and respected. But I hope you will
> at least listen to our complains, because they are honestly meant for
> the best.

Absolutely. I am sympathetic to the concerns. I'm just trying to be honest about what I believe can and cannot be done.



From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 16 01:07:12 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:07:12 +1000
Subject: String interpolation
Message-ID: <BANLkTincFqkSR3DiYycu4cY-nPxO9f67Rg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Has there been any discussions regarding adding String interpolation to Java?

E.g:

Person p = ...;
String hello = "Hello #{p.name}";

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org


From arnej at yahoo-inc.com  Mon May 16 05:22:30 2011
From: arnej at yahoo-inc.com (Arne Juul)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 07:22:30 +0200
Subject: String interpolation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTincFqkSR3DiYycu4cY-nPxO9f67Rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTincFqkSR3DiYycu4cY-nPxO9f67Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD0B496.8080109@yahoo-inc.com>

On 2011-05-16 03:07, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:
> Has there been any discussions regarding adding String interpolation to Java?

it already exists.

> Person p = ...;
> String hello = "Hello #{p.name}";
   String hello = "Hello "+p.name;

it's about the same amount to type for all the cases:

 > String hello = "Hello #{p.name}, how do you do";
   String hello = "Hello "+p.name+", how do you do";

 > String hello = "#{p.name}";
   String hello = ""+p.name;

 > String hello = "#{p.name} is here";
   String hello = ""+p.name+" is here";

I'm programming both ruby and java, and for all practical
purposes these two seemingly very different mechanisms
works in exactly the same way.

   -  Arne H. J.



From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 16 05:34:11 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:34:11 +1000
Subject: String interpolation
In-Reply-To: <4DD0B496.8080109@yahoo-inc.com>
References: <BANLkTincFqkSR3DiYycu4cY-nPxO9f67Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD0B496.8080109@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=oV4nJ1c7=qA2uXeo4iyw8DBhpRw@mail.gmail.com>

That is concatenation, not interpolation. FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_interpolation

And it might be a matter of preference but IMO string interpolation is
more readable than concatenation.

Plus, "Hello #{p.name}" in Java translates to:

"Hello "+p.getName()

Furthermore, for the sake of clarity and readability most people will
write it like:

"Hello " + p.getName() (i.e. with blank spaces around +) which is more verbose.


Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org



On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Arne Juul <arnej at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> On 2011-05-16 03:07, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:
>>
>> Has there been any discussions regarding adding String interpolation to
>> Java?
>
> it already exists.
>
>> Person p = ...;
>> String hello = "Hello #{p.name}";
>
> ?String hello = "Hello "+p.name;
>
> it's about the same amount to type for all the cases:
>
>> String hello = "Hello #{p.name}, how do you do";
> ?String hello = "Hello "+p.name+", how do you do";
>
>> String hello = "#{p.name}";
> ?String hello = ""+p.name;
>
>> String hello = "#{p.name} is here";
> ?String hello = ""+p.name+" is here";
>
> I'm programming both ruby and java, and for all practical
> purposes these two seemingly very different mechanisms
> works in exactly the same way.
>
> ?- ?Arne H. J.
>
>


From fweimer at bfk.de  Thu May 19 09:42:57 2011
From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:42:57 +0000
Subject: Rationale for the Classpath exception
Message-ID: <82wrhnf2la.fsf@mid.bfk.de>

I've been looking at single-executable deployments on Windows and
noticed that while the jdk subcomponent is mostly GPL plus Classpath
exception, Hotspot is GPL without the exception.  As far as I can tell,
this makes single-executable deployments nearly impossible, even for
non-proprietary applications, because code from the Apache Software
Foundation is so ubiquitous in the Java world (even OpenJDK includes
them).

Most free Hotspot replacements are released under the GPL, too, so it is
difficult for me to imagine a rationale for using the Classpath
exception on the jdk subcomponent, when you still need to ship another
component which is GPL-licensed.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Thu May 19 11:11:49 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 13:11:49 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFJhdGlvbmFsZSBmb3IgdGhlIENsYXNzcGF0aCBleGNlcHRpb24=?=
Message-ID: <4dd4fb10.dd25e30a.4f61.ffff8e10@mx.google.com>

I don't follow you rationale, what does it have to do the class library, with the license if the vm, with Apache code?

Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Florian Weimer" <fweimer at bfk.de>
Data: gio, mag 19, 2011 11:42
Oggetto: Rationale for the Classpath exception
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

I've been looking at single-executable deployments on Windows and
noticed that while the jdk subcomponent is mostly GPL plus Classpath
exception, Hotspot is GPL without the exception.  As far as I can tell,
this makes single-executable deployments nearly impossible, even for
non-proprietary applications, because code from the Apache Software
Foundation is so ubiquitous in the Java world (even OpenJDK includes
them).

Most free Hotspot replacements are released under the GPL, too, so it is
difficult for me to imagine a rationale for using the Classpath
exception on the jdk subcomponent, when you still need to ship another
component which is GPL-licensed.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

From fweimer at bfk.de  Thu May 19 11:10:29 2011
From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:10:29 +0000
Subject: Rationale for the Classpath exception
In-Reply-To: <4dd4fb10.dd25e30a.4f61.ffff8e10@mx.google.com> (neugens's
	message of "Thu, 19 May 2011 13:11:49 +0200")
References: <4dd4fb10.dd25e30a.4f61.ffff8e10@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <82ei3veyje.fsf@mid.bfk.de>

* neugens:

> I don't follow you rationale, what does it have to do the class
> library, with the license if the vm, with Apache code?

Apache code is usually licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0,
which is widely believed to be incompatible with the terms of the
GNU General Public License, version 2.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Thu May 19 11:40:59 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 13:40:59 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFJhdGlvbmFsZSBmb3IgdGhlIENsYXNzcGF0aCBleGNlcHRpb24=?=
Message-ID: <4dd501e6.0fe8d80a.4019.ffff8425@mx.google.com>

My knowledge is that a java class is by definition self contained in its execution environment, so different classes with different licenses can be mixed together, so this restriction does bot apply, unless you modify the source code of course.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Florian Weimer" <fweimer at bfk.de>
Data: gio, mag 19, 2011 13:10
Oggetto: Rationale for the Classpath exception
A: "neugens.limasoftware\@gmail.com" <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com>
Cc: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>


* neugens:

> I don't follow you rationale, what does it have to do the class
> library, with the license if the vm, with Apache code?

Apache code is usually licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0,
which is widely believed to be incompatible with the terms of the
GNU General Public License, version 2.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Thu May 19 13:53:35 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:53:35 +0100
Subject: Rationale for the Classpath exception
In-Reply-To: <82ei3veyje.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
References: <4dd4fb10.dd25e30a.4f61.ffff8e10@mx.google.com>
	<82ei3veyje.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikXw7eAkZf-ByU+y-KoUyhps0U3Lw@mail.gmail.com>

On 19 May 2011 12:10, Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de> wrote:
> * neugens:
>
>> I don't follow you rationale, what does it have to do the class
>> library, with the license if the vm, with Apache code?
>
> Apache code is usually licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0,
> which is widely believed to be incompatible with the terms of the
> GNU General Public License, version 2.
>

IANAL but my understanding is that this affects combining the two in a
single work.
By your logic, you can't run Apache software on Linux either, as that's GPL.

> --
> Florian Weimer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<fweimer at bfk.de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH ? ? ? http://www.bfk.de/
> Kriegsstra?e 100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76133 Karlsruhe ? ? ? ? ? ? fax: +49-721-96201-99
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Thu May 19 21:23:18 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:23:18 +0200
Subject: Build Infrastructure Project 
Message-ID: <CF4A3AC7-A3B0-4CDD-A07B-954D272F0C5F@oracle.com>

The OpenJDK Build Group has agreed to sponsor the Build Infrastructure
Project [1]

3 yes votes out of 4, one person on leave.

-kto

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-April/000094.html

From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Thu May 19 22:52:05 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:52:05 +0100
Subject: New Project approved: Build Infrastructure
In-Reply-To: <20110519220744.ABB322D89@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20110519220744.ABB322D89@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinKyzFjJL1QTgZ4bR4WNgqNPJKH3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 19 May 2011 23:07,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
> Per the interim governance guidelines for Projects [1] I'm pleased to
> announce the creation of the Build Infrastructure Project [2,3] following
> the Build Group's decision [4] to sponsor it. ?Kelly O'Hair will serve as
> the Project's Moderator.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-April/000094.html
> [3] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/build-infra
> [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2011-May/001822.html
>

I thought you weren't allowed to use the interim guidelines any more?
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From mgrushinskiy at gmail.com  Fri May 20 03:44:16 2011
From: mgrushinskiy at gmail.com (Mikhail Grushinskiy)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:44:16 -0400
Subject: abbreviating getters and setters proposal for java 8
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=8Y4vRNhvW8YCS=K2ToBRGKEvNsA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello JDK developers,

I have one proposal for java 8.
Java getters and setters are quite verbose. There was a number of proposals
to address it but none was
ever included into java. So here is another one.

Instead of:

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1;
    private boolean   b1;
    private Character c1;

    public Long getA1() {
        return a1;
    }

    public void setA1(Long a1) {
        this.a1 = a1;
    }

    public boolean isB1() {
        return b1;
    }

    public void setC1(Character c1) {
        this.c1 = c1;
    }
}

Allow writing it like following (using ><  .> and .< notation)
 where
     >< abbreviates both getter and setter
     .> abbreviation for a getter
     .< abbreviation for a setter

1.

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1 ><;
    private boolean   b1 .>;
    private Character c1 .<;
}

2. Implementing getters and setters (note that syntax for a setter is
consistent with java 7 lambda expression):

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1 ><;
    private boolean   b1 .> {true;};
    private Character c1 .< {Character x -> c1 = x;};
}

3. Calling getters and setters

Class1 obj1 = new Class1();

obj1.>a1; // same as obj1.getA1();

obj1.<a1(val1); // same as obj1.setA1(val1);


4. Annotating getter or setter

public class Class2 {

    private String s1 @ValidDateString .<;

}

5. Possible alternatives to .> and .<

 instead of .> reserve |>  or ->
 instead of .< reserve <|  or <|
 instead of >< reserve <-->


Thanks,
--MG


From mgrushinskiy at gmail.com  Fri May 20 03:54:17 2011
From: mgrushinskiy at gmail.com (Mikhail Grushinskiy)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:54:17 -0400
Subject: standardize type safe Criteria API in java 8 (proposal)
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=rgsDMTvBkcd7dVqSAqCdArWDetg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello JDK developers,

It would be nice if java 8 included standard type-safe Criteria API.
EHCache seems to have very nice one that can be looked at:

http://ehcache.org/documentation/search.html

Regards,
--MG


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Fri May 20 04:04:40 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 21:04:40 -0700
Subject: New Project approved: Build Infrastructure
In-Reply-To: gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 23:52:05 BST;
	<BANLkTinKyzFjJL1QTgZ4bR4WNgqNPJKH3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110520040440.700EF2D89@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/5/19 15:52 -0700, gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org:
> On 19 May 2011 23:07,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Per the interim governance guidelines for Projects [1] I'm pleased to
>> announce the creation of the Build Infrastructure Project [2,3] ...
> 
> I thought you weren't allowed to use the interim guidelines any more?

The interim guidelines remain in force until the new Bylaws have been
ratified.

- Mark


From mgrushinskiy at gmail.com  Fri May 20 04:32:01 2011
From: mgrushinskiy at gmail.com (Mikhail Grushinskiy)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 00:32:01 -0400
Subject: enforce strict code formatting on compiler level in java 8 (proposal)
Message-ID: <BANLkTimf7Rmq+Q=Zq+YRb+Cp2sM-gMcu0A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Different java development teams are using different code formatting
templates,
On the other hard once project typically includes other open source projects
which might format their code differently.
I think it is time to enforce stricter rules on compiler level to achieve
consistency.
I think Java IDE will catch up quickly to conform then to one common
standard dictated by java compiler itself.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
--MG


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri May 20 06:02:21 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:02:21 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IGFiYnJldmlhdGluZyBnZXR0ZXJzIGFuZCBzZXR0ZXJzIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBqYXZhIDg=?=
Message-ID: <4dd60408.cac3e30a.655e.ffffbcfe@mx.google.com>

If this reall must be done, why not use just annotations instead?

They make code readable rather than a collection of IRC smileys...

I don't think that saving 3 characters makes life so much easier, especially with modern IDEs that autocomplete everything, so the only benefit I see is that the compiler or the vm generates those accessors for you, but in client code you still use the getters/setters like before, which would help having clear code.

Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Mikhail Grushinskiy" <mgrushinskiy at gmail.com>
Data: ven, mag 20, 2011 05:44
Oggetto: abbreviating getters and setters proposal for java 8
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

Hello JDK developers,

I have one proposal for java 8.
Java getters and setters are quite verbose. There was a number of proposals
to address it but none was
ever included into java. So here is another one.

Instead of:

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1;
    private boolean   b1;
    private Character c1;

    public Long getA1() {
        return a1;
    }

    public void setA1(Long a1) {
        this.a1 = a1;
    }

    public boolean isB1() {
        return b1;
    }

    public void setC1(Character c1) {
        this.c1 = c1;
    }
}

Allow writing it like following (using ><  .> and .< notation)
 where
     >< abbreviates both getter and setter
     .> abbreviation for a getter
     .< abbreviation for a setter

1.

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1 ><;
    private boolean   b1 .>;
    private Character c1 .<;
}

2. Implementing getters and setters (note that syntax for a setter is
consistent with java 7 lambda expression):

public class Class1 {

    private Long      a1 ><;
    private boolean   b1 .> {true;};
    private Character c1 .< {Character x -> c1 = x;};
}

3. Calling getters and setters

Class1 obj1 = new Class1();

obj1.>a1; // same as obj1.getA1();

obj1.<a1(val1); // same as obj1.setA1(val1);


4. Annotating getter or setter

public class Class2 {

    private String s1 @ValidDateString .<;

}

5. Possible alternatives to .> and .<

 instead of .> reserve |>  or ->
 instead of .< reserve <|  or <|
 instead of >< reserve <-->


Thanks,
--MG

From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri May 20 06:09:55 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:09:55 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IE5ldyBQcm9qZWN0IGFwcHJvdmVkOiBCdWlsZCBJbmZyYXN0cnVjdHVyZQ==?=
Message-ID: <4dd605cf.0eb3e30a.5b7b.ffffbe31@mx.google.com>

But this is still a great news, I hope we can use thus project to allow easy cross compiling of the platform.

Congratulations,
Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Dr Andrew John Hughes" <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
Data: ven, mag 20, 2011 00:52
Oggetto: New Project approved: Build Infrastructure
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>
Cc: <announce at openjdk.java.net>


On 19 May 2011 23:07,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
> Per the interim governance guidelines for Projects [1] I'm pleased to
> announce the creation of the Build Infrastructure Project [2,3] following
> the Build Group's decision [4] to sponsor it. ?Kelly O'Hair will serve as
> the Project's Moderator.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-April/000094.html
> [3] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/build-infra
> [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2011-May/001822.html
>

I thought you weren't allowed to use the interim guidelines any more?
-- 
Andrew :-)

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

From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 23 04:47:34 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:47:34 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and library
	related issues?
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I have been a member of this mailing list for a while but looks like
most of the discussions here are related to JCP, governance, etc. Are
there other mailing lists for discussing issues related to the
language, syntax, and library, etc.?

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org


From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Mon May 23 05:44:25 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:44:25 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and library
	related issues?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>

Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 14:47:
> I have been a member of this mailing list for a while but looks like
> most of the discussions here are related to JCP, governance, etc.

Yes this list is for discussion about the OpenJDK community.

> there other mailing lists for discussing issues related to the
> language, syntax, and library, etc.?

Please see:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo

Language changes for 7 mostly came under Project Coin (see coin-dev 
list). Some specific things, like lambdas have their own lists - see 
lambda-dev.

Library changes depend on which library eg:
  - core-dev
  - awt-dev
  - net-dev
  - swing-dev
etc

Regards,
David Holmes


From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 23 08:00:55 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:00:55 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and
	library related issues?
In-Reply-To: <4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply. But now that 7 is in its final stages, is there a place to discuss language issues for post 7 versions?

Cheers,

Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org

On May 23, 2011, at 3:44 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:

> Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 14:47:
>> I have been a member of this mailing list for a while but looks like
>> most of the discussions here are related to JCP, governance, etc.
> 
> Yes this list is for discussion about the OpenJDK community.
> 
>> there other mailing lists for discussing issues related to the
>> language, syntax, and library, etc.?
> 
> Please see:
> 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo
> 
> Language changes for 7 mostly came under Project Coin (see coin-dev list). Some specific things, like lambdas have their own lists - see lambda-dev.
> 
> Library changes depend on which library eg:
> - core-dev
> - awt-dev
> - net-dev
> - swing-dev
> etc
> 
> Regards,
> David Holmes


From aph at redhat.com  Mon May 23 10:22:21 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:22:21 +0100
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and	library
	related issues?
In-Reply-To: <AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
	<AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDA355D.1020905@redhat.com>

On 23/05/11 09:00, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. But now that 7 is in its final stages, is there a place to discuss language issues for post 7 versions?

I think you have to be a bit more precise about what you mean.  In
the end, almost everything is a language issue.

Andrew.


From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Mon May 23 10:35:08 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:35:08 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and library
	related issues?
In-Reply-To: <AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
	<AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDA385C.4070604@oracle.com>

Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 18:00:
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. But now that 7 is in its final stages, is there a place to discuss language issues for post 7 versions?

I expect there will be a "project Coin2" or some such, but for now I 
don't see anything.

David

> Cheers,
> 
> Behrang Saeedzadeh
> http://www.behrang.org
> 
> On May 23, 2011, at 3:44 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 14:47:
>>> I have been a member of this mailing list for a while but looks like
>>> most of the discussions here are related to JCP, governance, etc.
>> Yes this list is for discussion about the OpenJDK community.
>>
>>> there other mailing lists for discussing issues related to the
>>> language, syntax, and library, etc.?
>> Please see:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo
>>
>> Language changes for 7 mostly came under Project Coin (see coin-dev list). Some specific things, like lambdas have their own lists - see lambda-dev.
>>
>> Library changes depend on which library eg:
>> - core-dev
>> - awt-dev
>> - net-dev
>> - swing-dev
>> etc
>>
>> Regards,
>> David Holmes


From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 23 10:35:54 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:35:54 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and
	library related issues?
In-Reply-To: <4DDA355D.1020905@redhat.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
	<AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
	<4DDA355D.1020905@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimi0iEeF9NCcyGGqL4U=dt+Zi3dEg@mail.gmail.com>

Is coin-dev only for Java 7 or is it going to be open for future
releases as well?

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org



On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/11 09:00, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reply. But now that 7 is in its final stages, is there a place to discuss language issues for post 7 versions?
>
> I think you have to be a bit more precise about what you mean. ?In
> the end, almost everything is a language issue.
>
> Andrew.
>


From behrangsa at gmail.com  Mon May 23 10:37:05 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:37:05 +1000
Subject: Which mailing list is suitable for discussing language and
	library related issues?
In-Reply-To: <4DDA385C.4070604@oracle.com>
References: <BANLkTi=1RakVxXXTuEuZ6y3oWzsUDg3uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD9F439.4070404@oracle.com>
	<AE36945F-05BA-408A-9554-279613D93EBB@gmail.com>
	<4DDA385C.4070604@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimWx_kPmLZePRvWyFzxtW+f15QbPg@mail.gmail.com>

I see. Then please ignore my previous email.

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org



On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:35 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 18:00:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. But now that 7 is in its final stages, is there a
>> place to discuss language issues for post 7 versions?
>
> I expect there will be a "project Coin2" or some such, but for now I don't
> see anything.
>
> David
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Behrang Saeedzadeh
>> http://www.behrang.org
>>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 3:44 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Behrang Saeedzadeh said the following on 05/23/11 14:47:
>>>>
>>>> I have been a member of this mailing list for a while but looks like
>>>> most of the discussions here are related to JCP, governance, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes this list is for discussion about the OpenJDK community.
>>>
>>>> there other mailing lists for discussing issues related to the
>>>> language, syntax, and library, etc.?
>>>
>>> Please see:
>>>
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>> Language changes for 7 mostly came under Project Coin (see coin-dev
>>> list). Some specific things, like lambdas have their own lists - see
>>> lambda-dev.
>>>
>>> Library changes depend on which library eg:
>>> - core-dev
>>> - awt-dev
>>> - net-dev
>>> - swing-dev
>>> etc
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David Holmes
>


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Tue May 24 07:04:17 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:04:17 +0200
Subject: JDK 8 Project
Message-ID: <53A9B380-D57F-4C6D-A338-2E0AF8287620@oracle.com>

The OpenJDK Build Group has agreed to sponsor the JDK 8 Project [1]

5 yes votes out of 6, one person on leave.

-kto

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-May/000098.html


From behrangsa at gmail.com  Tue May 24 07:56:21 2011
From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:56:21 +1000
Subject: JDK 8 Project
In-Reply-To: <53A9B380-D57F-4C6D-A338-2E0AF8287620@oracle.com>
References: <53A9B380-D57F-4C6D-A338-2E0AF8287620@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinRWo6tokHpsdfR95ffesW6U9gikg@mail.gmail.com>

Hip Hip... Hoorah!

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org



On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Kelly O'Hair <kelly.ohair at oracle.com> wrote:
> The OpenJDK Build Group has agreed to sponsor the JDK 8 Project [1]
>
> 5 yes votes out of 6, one person on leave.
>
> -kto
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-May/000098.html
>


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Tue May 24 09:08:09 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:08:09 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IEpESyA4IFByb2plY3Q=?=
Message-ID: <4ddb759b.cafdd80a.1eb5.ffff8396@mx.google.com>

Cheers!

Now let's make it rock :)

Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Kelly O'Hair" <kelly.ohair at oracle.com>
Data: mar, mag 24, 2011 09:04
Oggetto: JDK 8 Project
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

The OpenJDK Build Group has agreed to sponsor the JDK 8 Project [1]

5 yes votes out of 6, one person on leave.

-kto

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2011-May/000098.html

From mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com  Tue May 24 20:20:48 2011
From: mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com (Mohan Pakkurti)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:20:48 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
Message-ID: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>

Hi all,

I have posted an update on the effort to create a bug system for OpenJDK here:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000221.html

Please join that discussion if you have any comments.

Cheers

Mohan


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Tue May 24 22:36:51 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:36:51 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>

On 24 May 2011 21:20, Mohan Pakkurti <mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have posted an update on the effort to create a bug system for OpenJDK here:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000221.html
>
> Please join that discussion if you have any comments.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mohan
>

The current discussion seems to be very much one-sided in favour of
JIRA.  Here are a number of points that aren't covered and may balance
things up:

* The language of Bugzilla (Perl) is denoted as a negative, while the
language of JIRA (Java) is denoted as a positive.  What is the basis
for this?  Also, how is the language relevant for JIRA when the
application is proprietary and thus can't be modified anyway?
* Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
possible.  It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.
This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
line that is not available?  What choices do we have to implement it,
given we can't modify the code?
* The interfaces to these tools is going to matter a lot for people
reporting bugs.  Personally, the few times I've found someone using
JIRA (which is fairly rare), navigating its interface has been a
nightmare for me.  Bugzilla, on the other hand, is used on many FOSS
projects, including distros like Fedora, so users will be used to this
interface.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com  Wed May 25 09:39:28 2011
From: mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com (Mohan Pakkurti)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:39:28 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D7F1509-8DB2-44BC-B810-3C4A77B3764B@oracle.com>


On May 25, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> On 24 May 2011 21:20, Mohan Pakkurti <mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have posted an update on the effort to create a bug system for OpenJDK here:
>> 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000221.html
>> 
>> Please join that discussion if you have any comments.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Mohan
>> 
> 
> The current discussion seems to be very much one-sided in favour of
> JIRA.  Here are a number of points that aren't covered and may balance
> things up:
> 
> * The language of Bugzilla (Perl) is denoted as a negative, while the
> language of JIRA (Java) is denoted as a positive.  What is the basis
> for this?  Also, how is the language relevant for JIRA when the
> application is proprietary and thus can't be modified anyway?

In the context of choosing a system for OpenJDK, my assumption is that we as a group have more expertise in Java than in Perl. Even though the language should not matter, it would be definitely easier for us in OpenJDK to contribute extensions, plugins and modifications in Java for JIRA than in Perl for Bugzilla.

> * Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
> some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
> possible.  It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
> is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.

> This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
> IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
> line that is not available?  What choices do we have to implement it,
> given we can't modify the code?

If we need new features down the line, we can try to persuade Atlassian to implement them.  And, if we are not able to get them to do that, we can implement the features ourselves.

Every licensee of JIRA gets access to the full source code. We can modify the code to develop bug fixes, customisations or additional features. 

http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/faq.jsp#source_code

> * The interfaces to these tools is going to matter a lot for people
> reporting bugs.  Personally, the few times I've found someone using
> JIRA (which is fairly rare), navigating its interface has been a
> nightmare for me.  Bugzilla, on the other hand, is used on many FOSS
> projects, including distros like Fedora, so users will be used to this
> interface.

User interfaces are subjective. If you feel that familiarity from work with other open source projects helps,  JIRA is used by Apache, JBoss, Hibernate and a few other projects.

http://www.atlassian.com/opensource/

> -- 
> Andrew :-)
> 
> 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



From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Wed May 25 09:52:19 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:52:19 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFVwZGF0ZSBvbiBidWcgc3lzdGVtIGZvciBPcGVuSkRLICh3ZWItZGlzY3Vzcyk=?=
Message-ID: <4ddcd175.47cce30a.5815.1916@mx.google.com>

I actually support Andrew point of view.

Who will be able to contribute to enhance the bug tracking tool will be a selected group of people in either case, the question is, would you prefer to be this selected group limited to Oracle employees with access to the proprietary tool source code, or you want to handle it in the open like it should be and allow external contribution?

Mario

-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Mohan Pakkurti" <mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com>
Data: mer, mag 25, 2011 11:39
Oggetto: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
A: "Dr Andrew John Hughes" <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
Cc: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>



On May 25, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> On 24 May 2011 21:20, Mohan Pakkurti <mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have posted an update on the effort to create a bug system for OpenJDK here:
>> 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000221.html
>> 
>> Please join that discussion if you have any comments.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Mohan
>> 
> 
> The current discussion seems to be very much one-sided in favour of
> JIRA.  Here are a number of points that aren't covered and may balance
> things up:
> 
> * The language of Bugzilla (Perl) is denoted as a negative, while the
> language of JIRA (Java) is denoted as a positive.  What is the basis
> for this?  Also, how is the language relevant for JIRA when the
> application is proprietary and thus can't be modified anyway?

In the context of choosing a system for OpenJDK, my assumption is that we as a group have more expertise in Java than in Perl. Even though the language should not matter, it would be definitely easier for us in OpenJDK to contribute extensions, plugins and modifications in Java for JIRA than in Perl for Bugzilla.

> * Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
> some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
> possible.  It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
> is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.

> This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
> IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
> line that is not available?  What choices do we have to implement it,
> given we can't modify the code?

If we need new features down the line, we can try to persuade Atlassian to implement them.  And, if we are not able to get them to do that, we can implement the features ourselves.

Every licensee of JIRA gets access to the full source code. We can modify the code to develop bug fixes, customisations or additional features. 

http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/faq.jsp#source_code

> * The interfaces to these tools is going to matter a lot for people
> reporting bugs.  Personally, the few times I've found someone using
> JIRA (which is fairly rare), navigating its interface has been a
> nightmare for me.  Bugzilla, on the other hand, is used on many FOSS
> projects, including distros like Fedora, so users will be used to this
> interface.

User interfaces are subjective. If you feel that familiarity from work with other open source projects helps,  JIRA is used by Apache, JBoss, Hibernate and a few other projects.

http://www.atlassian.com/opensource/

> -- 
> Andrew :-)
> 
> 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


From aph at redhat.com  Wed May 25 10:07:06 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:07:06 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4D7F1509-8DB2-44BC-B810-3C4A77B3764B@oracle.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F1509-8DB2-44BC-B810-3C4A77B3764B@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCD4CA.50902@redhat.com>

On 05/25/2011 10:39 AM, Mohan Pakkurti wrote:
> 
> On May 25, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 
>> On 24 May 2011 21:20, Mohan Pakkurti <mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have posted an update on the effort to create a bug system for
>>> OpenJDK here:
>>>
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000221.html
>>>
>>> Please join that discussion if you have any comments.
>>>
>>
>> The current discussion seems to be very much one-sided in favour of
>> JIRA.  Here are a number of points that aren't covered and may balance
>> things up:
>>
>> * The language of Bugzilla (Perl) is denoted as a negative, while the
>> language of JIRA (Java) is denoted as a positive.  What is the basis
>> for this?  Also, how is the language relevant for JIRA when the
>> application is proprietary and thus can't be modified anyway?
> 
> In the context of choosing a system for OpenJDK, my assumption is
> that we as a group have more expertise in Java than in Perl. Even
> though the language should not matter, it would be definitely easier
> for us in OpenJDK to contribute extensions, plugins and
> modifications in Java for JIRA than in Perl for Bugzilla.
> 
>> * Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
>> some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
>> possible.  It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
>> is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.
> 
>> This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
>> IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
>> line that is not available?  What choices do we have to implement it,
>> given we can't modify the code?
> 
> If we need new features down the line, we can try to persuade
> Atlassian to implement them.  And, if we are not able to get them to
> do that, we can implement the features ourselves.
> 
> Every licensee of JIRA gets access to the full source code. We can
> modify the code to develop bug fixes, customisations or additional
> features.

Who does "we" refer to here, though?  Is the licensee of JIRA Oracle
or OpenJDK?

Andrew.


From scolebourne at joda.org  Wed May 25 10:08:26 2011
From: scolebourne at joda.org (Stephen Colebourne)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:08:26 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>

On 24 May 2011 23:36, Dr Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> * Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
> some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
> possible. ?It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
> is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.
> This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
> IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
> line that is not available? ?What choices do we have to implement it,
> given we can't modify the code?

OpenJDK isn't an open source project, its a project producing open
source. Grasping that essential truth means that having a tool that
can be altered is irrelevant, as there will be an owner (eg Oracle)
that will be able to manage the proprietary system and pay for changes
to it as and when necessary.

What you shoud be asking for is open/free *data* from the bug tracking
system (via a free to use API). If the data submitted to the bug
system is privately owned by Oracle then you have an impediment to
forking. The actual system the data resides in is pretty much
irrelevant. (ie. with open data, you could write a tool to mirror JIRA
into a Bugzilla instance and use Bugzilla if you really wanted to)


> * The interfaces to these tools is going to matter a lot for people
> reporting bugs. ?Personally, the few times I've found someone using
> JIRA (which is fairly rare), navigating its interface has been a
> nightmare for me. ?Bugzilla, on the other hand, is used on many FOSS
> projects, including distros like Fedora, so users will be used to this
> interface.

Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
usability by "real world" users that don't write open source. I'd
wager that far more of them are comfortable with the JIRA interface
than the Bugzilla one.

Stephen


From aph at redhat.com  Wed May 25 10:30:55 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:30:55 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>

On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 24 May 2011 23:36, Dr Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> * Bugzilla is criticised for needing code modifications to achieve
>> some features, but was this necessary for JIRA, it would not be
>> possible.  It's not ideal that required features aren't available as
>> is, but Bugzilla being FOSS means any required feature can be added.
>> This is not possible with JIRA and is a major pro in choosing Bugzilla
>> IMHO. What happens if JIRA is chosen and a feature is needed down the
>> line that is not available?  What choices do we have to implement it,
>> given we can't modify the code?
> 
> OpenJDK isn't an open source project, its a project producing open
> source. Grasping that essential truth means that having a tool that
> can be altered is irrelevant, as there will be an owner (eg Oracle)
> that will be able to manage the proprietary system and pay for changes
> to it as and when necessary.

Will they?  That sounds like an unjustified assumption.

> What you shoud be asking for is open/free *data* from the bug tracking
> system (via a free to use API). If the data submitted to the bug
> system is privately owned by Oracle then you have an impediment to
> forking. The actual system the data resides in is pretty much
> irrelevant. (ie. with open data, you could write a tool to mirror JIRA
> into a Bugzilla instance and use Bugzilla if you really wanted to)

That's true.  The legal ownership of the data also matters.

>> * The interfaces to these tools is going to matter a lot for people
>> reporting bugs.  Personally, the few times I've found someone using
>> JIRA (which is fairly rare), navigating its interface has been a
>> nightmare for me.  Bugzilla, on the other hand, is used on many FOSS
>> projects, including distros like Fedora, so users will be used to this
>> interface.
> 
> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.

I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
is critical.

Andrew.


From weijun.wang at oracle.com  Wed May 25 10:31:57 2011
From: weijun.wang at oracle.com (Weijun Wang)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:31:57 +0800
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4D7F1509-8DB2-44BC-B810-3C4A77B3764B@oracle.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F1509-8DB2-44BC-B810-3C4A77B3764B@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCDA9D.5050801@oracle.com>

>> The current discussion seems to be very much one-sided in favour of
>> JIRA.  Here are a number of points that aren't covered and may balance
>> things up:
>>
>> * The language of Bugzilla (Perl) is denoted as a negative, while the
>> language of JIRA (Java) is denoted as a positive.  What is the basis
>> for this?  Also, how is the language relevant for JIRA when the
>> application is proprietary and thus can't be modified anyway?
>
> In the context of choosing a system for OpenJDK, my assumption is that we as a group have more expertise in Java than in Perl. Even though the language should not matter, it would be definitely easier for us in OpenJDK to contribute extensions, plugins and modifications in Java for JIRA than in Perl for Bugzilla.

Hey, everyone knows Perl. As for Java, if it is only Java SE, that's OK 
for me. As soon as the EE word appears, be it JSP or EJB or anything, 
I'm totally an idiot.

-Max


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Wed May 25 11:02:22 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:02:22 -0400
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <008601cc1acb$3dfc7420$b9f55c60$@milinkovich@eclipse.org>


> > What you shoud be asking for is open/free *data* from the bug tracking
> > system (via a free to use API). If the data submitted to the bug
> > system is privately owned by Oracle then you have an impediment to
> > forking. The actual system the data resides in is pretty much
> > irrelevant. (ie. with open data, you could write a tool to mirror JIRA
> > into a Bugzilla instance and use Bugzilla if you really wanted to)
> 
> That's true.  The legal ownership of the data also matters.

Assuming that the bug database would be covered by the OpenJDK terms of
use[1], a quick read says that Oracle aggregates a pretty complete license
to any content contributed, but not ownership. (This may be different for
those who have actually signed an OCA.) The licenses to the content would be
the license of the project or the New BSD unless otherwise noted.

IMHO, the license that the data is made available under is the more
important factor than the ownership. At Eclipse, for example, the ownership
of the content in the bug database is highly diffused. The right to fork,
duplicate, create derivative works, etc. comes from the license. 

IANAL.

[1] http://openjdk.org/legal/terms.html 



From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Wed May 25 13:06:28 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:06:28 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <7976705020388599792@unknownmsgid>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com> <7976705020388599792@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikNpn8=RSZT26G_yECjmqu9FzfL4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Besides the question about the license of the data which is very
important in my opinion as well I would like to raise the question if
the new bug database will be for OpenJDK ONLY or if it will cover all
the bugs for OpenJDK AND for the proprietary Oracle JDK together.

One of the biggest problems the current OpenJDK bug trackimg system
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/) suffers from is that it is just the
"little sibling" or even "orphan" of the "real" bug tracker (I think
its name is bugster) at Oracle which is the single bug authority
currently used by the JDK developers at Oracle. The only public window
into this "bugster" thing is  bugs.sun.com and probably every external
OpenJDK developer knows its problems:

1. it doesn't show all the bugs (because of security reasons, because
of licensing issues, because of incomprehensible reasons)
2. if it shows a bug, it doesn't show all of the fields (same reasons as above)
3. entering bugs from outside Oracle is very cumbersome

The question is now if the new "OpenJDK" bug system will resolve these
issues and if it will be the single authoritative bug system for
OpenJDK ("the project which produces open source" to speak with
Stephen Colebourne's words) AND the OracleJDK ("the project behind the
project which produces open source").

Regards,
Volker

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org> wrote:
>
>> > What you shoud be asking for is open/free *data* from the bug tracking
>> > system (via a free to use API). If the data submitted to the bug
>> > system is privately owned by Oracle then you have an impediment to
>> > forking. The actual system the data resides in is pretty much
>> > irrelevant. (ie. with open data, you could write a tool to mirror JIRA
>> > into a Bugzilla instance and use Bugzilla if you really wanted to)
>>
>> That's true. ?The legal ownership of the data also matters.
>
> Assuming that the bug database would be covered by the OpenJDK terms of
> use[1], a quick read says that Oracle aggregates a pretty complete license
> to any content contributed, but not ownership. (This may be different for
> those who have actually signed an OCA.) The licenses to the content would be
> the license of the project or the New BSD unless otherwise noted.
>
> IMHO, the license that the data is made available under is the more
> important factor than the ownership. At Eclipse, for example, the ownership
> of the content in the bug database is highly diffused. The right to fork,
> duplicate, create derivative works, etc. comes from the license.
>
> IANAL.
>
> [1] http://openjdk.org/legal/terms.html
>
>


From mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com  Wed May 25 13:57:52 2011
From: mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com (Mohan Pakkurti)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:57:52 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikNpn8=RSZT26G_yECjmqu9FzfL4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46598CC3-1D5A-4F0A-9986-037BB10A5FDB@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikkTFeC-UnMrCyr12e5FNZZBPDK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimb8fCYbbZyZBBMnfDBPZT9-GZvSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com> <7976705020388599792@unknownmsgid>
	<BANLkTikNpn8=RSZT26G_yECjmqu9FzfL4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <398FC9C9-E07F-4298-95D9-EFB955D56B5F@oracle.com>

On May 25, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:

> Besides the question about the license of the data which is very
> important in my opinion as well I would like to raise the question if
> the new bug database will be for OpenJDK ONLY or if it will cover all
> the bugs for OpenJDK AND for the proprietary Oracle JDK together.
> 
> One of the biggest problems the current OpenJDK bug trackimg system
> (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/) suffers from is that it is just the
> "little sibling" or even "orphan" of the "real" bug tracker (I think
> its name is bugster) at Oracle which is the single bug authority
> currently used by the JDK developers at Oracle. The only public window
> into this "bugster" thing is  bugs.sun.com and probably every external
> OpenJDK developer knows its problems:
> 
> 1. it doesn't show all the bugs (because of security reasons, because
> of licensing issues, because of incomprehensible reasons)
> 2. if it shows a bug, it doesn't show all of the fields (same reasons as above)
> 3. entering bugs from outside Oracle is very cumbersome
> 
> The question is now if the new "OpenJDK" bug system will resolve these
> issues and if it will be the single authoritative bug system for
> OpenJDK ("the project which produces open source" to speak with
> Stephen Colebourne's words) AND the OracleJDK ("the project behind the
> project which produces open source").

Yes, the OpenJDK bug system will be the authoritative bug system for use by all 
people involved in the development processes for the JDK, both outside and inside 
Oracle. 

Oracle engineers will use another internal system for customer issues and these 
internal bug reports could point to issues in the OpenJDK system.


> Regards,
> Volker
> 
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Mike Milinkovich
> <mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> What you shoud be asking for is open/free *data* from the bug tracking
>>>> system (via a free to use API). If the data submitted to the bug
>>>> system is privately owned by Oracle then you have an impediment to
>>>> forking. The actual system the data resides in is pretty much
>>>> irrelevant. (ie. with open data, you could write a tool to mirror JIRA
>>>> into a Bugzilla instance and use Bugzilla if you really wanted to)
>>> 
>>> That's true.  The legal ownership of the data also matters.
>> 
>> Assuming that the bug database would be covered by the OpenJDK terms of
>> use[1], a quick read says that Oracle aggregates a pretty complete license
>> to any content contributed, but not ownership. (This may be different for
>> those who have actually signed an OCA.) The licenses to the content would be
>> the license of the project or the New BSD unless otherwise noted.
>> 
>> IMHO, the license that the data is made available under is the more
>> important factor than the ownership. At Eclipse, for example, the ownership
>> of the content in the bug database is highly diffused. The right to fork,
>> duplicate, create derivative works, etc. comes from the license.
>> 
>> IANAL.
>> 
>> [1] http://openjdk.org/legal/terms.html
>> 
>> 



From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Wed May 25 16:52:20 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:52:20 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: aph@redhat.com; Wed, 25 May 2011 11:30:55 BST;
	<4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
> On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
>> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
>> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
>> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
>> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
>> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
> 
> I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
> is critical.

I completely agree.  The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
Contributors.  It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.

Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1].  Once the
open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
that system.

- Mark


[1] http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/


From matt.fowles at gmail.com  Wed May 25 17:10:23 2011
From: matt.fowles at gmail.com (Matt Fowles)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:10:23 -0400
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
	<20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=CE_Vv=APh0eeiVcVwDSO1Eg+2pQ@mail.gmail.com>

Mark~

I think it should be writable by everyone.  I have in the past had
useful things to add to tickets that I found on the JVM that I did not
bother with because I could not comment on them.  The comments could
go into a moderation queue or require a sign up, but I don't think
they should be restricted to full Contributors.

Matt

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
>> On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
>>> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
>>> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
>>> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
>>> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
>>> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
>>
>> I don't believe that. ?The usability of the bug database by developers
>> is critical.
>
> I completely agree. ?The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
> Contributors. ?It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>
> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1]. ?Once the
> open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
> that system.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
>


From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Thu May 26 16:30:10 2011
From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:30:10 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=CE_Vv=APh0eeiVcVwDSO1Eg+2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
	<20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTi=CE_Vv=APh0eeiVcVwDSO1Eg+2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDE8012.8000700@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 25/05/11 18:10, Matt Fowles wrote:
> Mark~
>
> I think it should be writable by everyone.  I have in the past had
> useful things to add to tickets that I found on the JVM that I did not
> bother with because I could not comment on them.  The comments could
> go into a moderation queue or require a sign up, but I don't think
> they should be restricted to full Contributors.
>
Yep - completely agree. Low cost of entry please.  Of course there 
should be the ability for admins to remove spam and abusive material etc 
but no artificial barriers based on worries about peoples behaviour.  If 
it comes to it then you can always add restrictions later.

> Matt
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM,<mark.reinhold at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
>>> On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
>>>> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
>>>> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
>>>> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
>>>> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
>>>> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
>>> I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
>>> is critical.
>> I completely agree.  The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>> Contributors.  It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>
>> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
>> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1].  Once the
>> open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
>> that system.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>> [1] http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
>>



From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Thu May 26 18:50:34 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:50:34 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DDE8012.8000700@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
	<20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<BANLkTi=CE_Vv=APh0eeiVcVwDSO1Eg+2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDE8012.8000700@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikJq63O4VzZ_i36qgppa5++buSx6A@mail.gmail.com>

I'm using JIRA and Confluence during my day works and they team perfectly.

Atlassian offer free licences for OpenSource project so the cost is
not a problem.
You could have powerfull workflows and some add-ons like GreenHopper,
make JIRA even more attractive.

And of course JIRA is a Java application, perfectly suited for a
project like ... OpenJDK isn't it ?

Just my 2cts.

2011/5/26 Steve Poole <spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> On 25/05/11 18:10, Matt Fowles wrote:
>>
>> Mark~
>>
>> I think it should be writable by everyone. ?I have in the past had
>> useful things to add to tickets that I found on the JVM that I did not
>> bother with because I could not comment on them. ?The comments could
>> go into a moderation queue or require a sign up, but I don't think
>> they should be restricted to full Contributors.
>>
> Yep - completely agree. Low cost of entry please. ?Of course there should be
> the ability for admins to remove spam and abusive material etc but no
> artificial barriers based on worries about peoples behaviour. ?If it comes
> to it then you can always add restrictions later.
>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM,<mark.reinhold at oracle.com> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
>>>>> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
>>>>> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
>>>>> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
>>>>> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
>>>>> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that. ?The usability of the bug database by developers
>>>> is critical.
>>>
>>> I completely agree. ?The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>> Contributors. ?It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>
>>> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
>>> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1]. ?Once the
>>> open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
>>> that system.
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
>>>
>
>


From michael.s.klishin at gmail.com  Thu May 26 19:06:07 2011
From: michael.s.klishin at gmail.com (Michael Klishin)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:06:07 +0400
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>

> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.

Mark,

I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.

Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.

My 2?.-- 
MK








From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Thu May 26 19:30:22 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:30:22 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <588AE211-74A0-4DD8-B0DC-6CE8602C94B9@oracle.com>

Michael,

> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.

we don't want this to happen.  Since the early days there has been the ability for the
community to add comments to Java bugs which are reviewed by developers. The
problem with this implementation is that the comments are physically separate from
the bug information and were not easily viewable inline with the main bug updates.  
With the change to new system we need to look for a better model with clearly one 
option being to allow comments to be added directly into the system that is chosen,

	Roger

From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Fri May 27 10:11:19 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:11:19 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>

I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.

It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
when it finally appears publicly.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
<michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>
> Mark,
>
> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>
> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>
> My 2?.--
> MK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Fri May 27 11:11:39 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:11:39 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <4DDCDA5F.3090903@redhat.com>
	<20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimFnS-WVijRFzc4=ODmBs+n52QwsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:52 PM, <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:

> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
> > On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
> >> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
> >> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
> >> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
> >> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
> >> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
> >
> > I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
> > is critical.
>
> I completely agree.  The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
> Contributors.  It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>
> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1].  Once the
> open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
> that system.
>

JIRA has highly customizable workflows - so we can actually have the best of
both worlds.

We could allow open submission of bugs (although may not public commenting
on bugs).

Then the internal Oracle team could move a Submitted bug into an Open /
Triaged state or to Closed if it's obviously spurious.

That way, the bug appears instantly in the database and has a permanent URL,
which prevents the disconnect between the bug being submitted and appearing
hours or days later, without necessarily any easy way to link it to the
original bug report.

However, this also allows views to be driven only off the filtered view,
preventing contributors tripping over potentially large numbers of spurious
bugs.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ben


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri May 27 11:42:52 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:42:52 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFVwZGF0ZSBvbiBidWcgc3lzdGVtIGZvciBPcGVuSkRLICh3ZWItZGlzY3Vzcyk=?=
Message-ID: <4ddf8e65.c64ed80a.1aca.5f18@mx.google.com>

I don't know why not allow public commenting in the first place.

We may ask for a logged user for this, but the login procedure should be trivial and fast.

Any other kind or restriction should be avoided, imho.

As for bugzilla vs track vs jira etc, I don't really think that matter much as soon as: the data is available easily and that the barrier to allow contribution is kept low.

As I said earlier, I don't expect many external contribution directly on the db, but I would not exclude that a priori, so I suggest a system that is open to hacking given the other features can be considered comparable. It also has a nicer appeal PR wise.

Mario
-- 
Sent from HTC Desire...

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.icedrobot.org

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/


----- Reply message -----
Da: "Ben Evans" <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com>
Data: ven, mag 27, 2011 13:11
Oggetto: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
A: <mark.reinhold at oracle.com>
Cc: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>


On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:52 PM, <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:

> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
> > On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
> >> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
> >> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
> >> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
> >> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
> >> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
> >
> > I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
> > is critical.
>
> I completely agree.  The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
> Contributors.  It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>
> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1].  Once the
> open system is in place I expect many of those reports will wind up in
> that system.
>

JIRA has highly customizable workflows - so we can actually have the best of
both worlds.

We could allow open submission of bugs (although may not public commenting
on bugs).

Then the internal Oracle team could move a Submitted bug into an Open /
Triaged state or to Closed if it's obviously spurious.

That way, the bug appears instantly in the database and has a permanent URL,
which prevents the disconnect between the bug being submitted and appearing
hours or days later, without necessarily any easy way to link it to the
original bug report.

However, this also allows views to be driven only off the filtered view,
preventing contributors tripping over potentially large numbers of spurious
bugs.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ben

From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Fri May 27 12:21:11 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:21:11 +1000
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>

Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
> 
> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
> when it finally appears publicly.

The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane 
once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The 
current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level 
filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from 
contributors, they come from users.

So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug 
system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.

David Holmes

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>> Mark,
>>
>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>
>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>
>> My 2?.--
>> MK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Fri May 27 12:43:04 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:43:04 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimrjC3kvJu3pFRD=ab52-R_s8Jtew@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, then maybe we have to specify more precise what a "Contributer" is:

1. According to the OpenJDK site (http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/)
it's an individual who has signed the OCA. But currently these
"contributors" don't get any "credentials" they could use to
authenticate. Although that would require a new infrastructure that
would have to be set up this solution would be ok for me because
everybody who is seriously interested in contributing to the OpenJDK
would have a chance to become a "contributor".

2. If you mean "Contributor" in the sense of "somebody who has commit
rights into a Mercurial repository", that would be to rigorous in my
opinion and would prevent many serious contributions.

3.  Somebody who has requested an account trough a "trivial and fast
procedure" as proposed before (and as it is today) would be probably
to lax from you point of view.

What do you think?

Volker

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:21 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>
>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>
>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>> when it finally appears publicly.
>
> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once
> you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current
> process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering
> mechanism of some kind. ?Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they
> come from users.
>
> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug
> system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>
> David Holmes
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular
>>> developers", they will post their issues
>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the
>>> end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>
>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that
>>> would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>
>>> My 2?.--
>>> MK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri May 27 12:48:40 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:48:40 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimrjC3kvJu3pFRD=ab52-R_s8Jtew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTimrjC3kvJu3pFRD=ab52-R_s8Jtew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=VMBRCwuvHtzjf0U16Uyba4YT6yA@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2011 13:43, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, then maybe we have to specify more precise what a "Contributer" is:
>
> 1. According to the OpenJDK site (http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/)
> it's an individual who has signed the OCA. But currently these
> "contributors" don't get any "credentials" they could use to
> authenticate. Although that would require a new infrastructure that
> would have to be set up this solution would be ok for me because
> everybody who is seriously interested in contributing to the OpenJDK
> would have a chance to become a "contributor".
>
> 2. If you mean "Contributor" in the sense of "somebody who has commit
> rights into a Mercurial repository", that would be to rigorous in my
> opinion and would prevent many serious contributions.
>
> 3. ?Somebody who has requested an account trough a "trivial and fast
> procedure" as proposed before (and as it is today) would be probably
> to lax from you point of view.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Volker
>

My guess is Mark used "Contributor" (with a capital "C") to refer to
the definition
in the proposed bylaws:

"A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
Agreement (OCA), or who works for an organization that has signed that
agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope
of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may
submit anything larger than a simple patch.

If a Contributor?s employment situation changes such that
contributions would no longer be covered by the OCA or its equivalent
then the Contributor must relinquish that role by notifying the
OpenJDK Lead."

http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Fri May 27 14:08:47 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:08:47 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=VMBRCwuvHtzjf0U16Uyba4YT6yA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTimrjC3kvJu3pFRD=ab52-R_s8Jtew@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=VMBRCwuvHtzjf0U16Uyba4YT6yA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimWxf3ymU4uv+7gNFd960gDMmW=mQ@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, that sounds reasonable. But that would still require some sort of
mechanism which allows "Contributors" to authenticate themselves in
the new bug tracking system that probably nobody has thought about
until now..

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On 27 May 2011 13:43, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, then maybe we have to specify more precise what a "Contributer" is:
>>
>> 1. According to the OpenJDK site (http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/)
>> it's an individual who has signed the OCA. But currently these
>> "contributors" don't get any "credentials" they could use to
>> authenticate. Although that would require a new infrastructure that
>> would have to be set up this solution would be ok for me because
>> everybody who is seriously interested in contributing to the OpenJDK
>> would have a chance to become a "contributor".
>>
>> 2. If you mean "Contributor" in the sense of "somebody who has commit
>> rights into a Mercurial repository", that would be to rigorous in my
>> opinion and would prevent many serious contributions.
>>
>> 3. ?Somebody who has requested an account trough a "trivial and fast
>> procedure" as proposed before (and as it is today) would be probably
>> to lax from you point of view.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Volker
>>
>
> My guess is Mark used "Contributor" (with a capital "C") to refer to
> the definition
> in the proposed bylaws:
>
> "A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
> Agreement (OCA), or who works for an organization that has signed that
> agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope
> of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may
> submit anything larger than a simple patch.
>
> If a Contributor?s employment situation changes such that
> contributions would no longer be covered by the OCA or its equivalent
> then the Contributor must relinquish that role by notifying the
> OpenJDK Lead."
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09
> --
> Andrew :-)
>
> 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
>


From david at davidherron.com  Fri May 27 15:07:36 2011
From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:07:36 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>

I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug. 

The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping up.  

But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers. 

David Herron



On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:

> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>> when it finally appears publicly.
> 
> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they come from users.
> 
> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
> 
> David Holmes
> 
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>> 
>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>> 
>>> My 2?.--
>>> MK
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 


From david at davidherron.com  Fri May 27 15:12:18 2011
From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:12:18 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimWxf3ymU4uv+7gNFd960gDMmW=mQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTimrjC3kvJu3pFRD=ab52-R_s8Jtew@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=VMBRCwuvHtzjf0U16Uyba4YT6yA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimWxf3ymU4uv+7gNFd960gDMmW=mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7473D28C-C8B5-4D9E-B30C-172F96A67C3E@davidherron.com>

FWIW there is a range of possible permissions or capabilities each authenticated person could have. That is, rather than two authentication systems (bug reports, mercurial checkin rights) what about a single authentication system that handles not just these two access control issues, but potentially others in the future?

Just a thought from someone with no skin in the game. 

David Herron



On May 27, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, that sounds reasonable. But that would still require some sort of
> mechanism which allows "Contributors" to authenticate themselves in
> the new bug tracking system that probably nobody has thought about
> until now..
> 
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> On 27 May 2011 13:43, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, then maybe we have to specify more precise what a "Contributer" is:
>>> 
>>> 1. According to the OpenJDK site (http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/)
>>> it's an individual who has signed the OCA. But currently these
>>> "contributors" don't get any "credentials" they could use to
>>> authenticate. Although that would require a new infrastructure that
>>> would have to be set up this solution would be ok for me because
>>> everybody who is seriously interested in contributing to the OpenJDK
>>> would have a chance to become a "contributor".
>>> 
>>> 2. If you mean "Contributor" in the sense of "somebody who has commit
>>> rights into a Mercurial repository", that would be to rigorous in my
>>> opinion and would prevent many serious contributions.
>>> 
>>> 3.  Somebody who has requested an account trough a "trivial and fast
>>> procedure" as proposed before (and as it is today) would be probably
>>> to lax from you point of view.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Volker
>>> 
>> 
>> My guess is Mark used "Contributor" (with a capital "C") to refer to
>> the definition
>> in the proposed bylaws:
>> 
>> "A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
>> Agreement (OCA), or who works for an organization that has signed that
>> agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope
>> of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may
>> submit anything larger than a simple patch.
>> 
>> If a Contributor?s employment situation changes such that
>> contributions would no longer be covered by the OCA or its equivalent
>> then the Contributor must relinquish that role by notifying the
>> OpenJDK Lead."
>> 
>> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09
>> --
>> Andrew :-)
>> 
>> 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
>> 


From mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com  Fri May 27 15:38:48 2011
From: mohan.pakkurti at oracle.com (Mohan Pakkurti)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:38:48 +0200
Subject: Update on code review system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
Message-ID: <9B18DB7F-88D0-480C-B1BC-CF45DC966FB5@oracle.com>

Hi all,

I posted an update on the project to choose a new code review system for OpenJDK on the web-discuss mailing list. 

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/web-discuss/2011-May/000226.html

If you have comments or want to be stay tuned please follow this thread on web-discuss.

Thanks

Mohan




From georges.saab at oracle.com  Fri May 27 17:47:58 2011
From: georges.saab at oracle.com (Georges Saab)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:47:58 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
Message-ID: <16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>

The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people who contribute time
and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But there has to be a better way 
of handling it than the current one.

I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between bug reports from end users,
developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?

Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you are an end user 
versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if there are still
an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you please do 
my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise the bar?

   /GES

On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:

> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug. 
> 
> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping up.  
> 
> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers. 
> 
> David Herron
> 
> 
> 
> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>> 
>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they come from users.
>> 
>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>> 
>> David Holmes
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>> 
>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> My 2?.--
>>>> MK
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 



From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Fri May 27 18:24:24 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:24:24 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <74369045-D1D5-44F6-9CC6-405C247E31B9@oracle.com>

>> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between bug reports from end users,
>> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
	yes, this is certainly something that we can improve moving forward.  There are different
sets of users that have used bugs.sun.com:

- IT professionals who may not know much about Java, however they have a problem with the
software that is running on Java, they want to be able to find out if there is a fix and download
the binary with the fix.  We need to make this as easy as possible.

- Java Developers who only care about using Java, here there is some overlap between the
forums and the bug reports (as was pointed out earlier in the thread).  We need to make it 
easy to state a problem, refine the description, the platforms it is reported on etc. and 
essentially validate it so that it can be easily reproduced and fixed.  It is here where the
most "noise" occurs with comments and bugs that are not always well formed.  The
bug submittal process needs to help extract that information.

- Java Developers who have 'skin in the game'.  Here submitting a bug should be easy
in the sense that one is presented with a blank text field and one types in the issue
and hits submit with no filtering etc.

	Roger

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com>
> Date: 27 May 2011 10:47:58 PDT
> To: David Herron <david at davidherron.com>
> Cc: "discuss at openjdk.java.net" <discuss at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
> 
> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people who contribute time
> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But there has to be a better way 
> of handling it than the current one.
> 
> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between bug reports from end users,
> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
> 
> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you are an end user 
> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if there are still
> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you please do 
> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise the bar?
> 
>   /GES
> 
> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
> 
>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug. 
>> 
>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping up.  
>> 
>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers. 
>> 
>> David Herron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>> 
>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they come from users.
>>> 
>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>> 
>>> David Holmes
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>> MK
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> 


From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Sun May 29 01:08:26 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 02:08:26 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK
In-Reply-To: <4DDC54C9.4000501@oracle.com>
References: <C1E9B414-CC39-46A8-960F-0CEE3D3D0407@oracle.com>
	<4DDC54C9.4000501@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimDouhgpDfA0WAQgAVUXOcSWOvgtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 May 2011 02:00, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
> If JIRA is all green and Bugster has so many yellow and red, why is it still
> listed as a choice? There must be something where Bugzilla has its
> advantage, although I don't know what it is.
>
> Thanks
> Max
>
>
>

As raised in the other thread on this
(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2011-May/001841.html
-- no idea why we need two...), these advantages/disadvantages depend
on the criteria chosen and many areas where Bugzilla is preferable to
JIRA have simply not been included.  For example,

* We already have a Bugzilla instance (bugs.openjdk.java.net) with
users and bugs already filed.  This was the result of a democratic
decision taken at FOSDEM in the early days of OpenJDK.
* Bugzilla is FOSS, so if improvements do need to be made (which are
listed as negatives in the comparison), they can be and by anyone.
JIRA however is under a proprietary license.  Apparently, as mentioned
in the other thread, those who obtain a license get access to the
source code, but this still limits changes to a select group and to
whatever terms that source is available under.
* Bugzilla is used by many FOSS projects including several GNU/Linux
distributions (e.g. Fedora, RHEL, Gentoo) and the IcedTea project, so
OpenJDK/IcedTea users will have already experienced filing bugs
against it using these bug systems.

To me, they actually seem rather equal, bar the points outlined above,
but Bugzilla seems to have been cast in a more unfavourable light than
JIRA in the comparsion, including such idealogical comparisons as the
development language used to write the bug system.
-- 
Andrew :-)

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


From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Mon May 30 09:10:41 2011
From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 10:10:41 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 27/05/11 18:47, Georges Saab wrote:
> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people who contribute time
> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But there has to be a better way
> of handling it than the current one.
I assume that you end up pointing a lot of these requests to some 
external documentation?   I'm thinking that if OpenJDK's landing page 
included pointers to FAQs , user discussion mailing lists etc that would 
help reduce the amount of noise.
> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between bug reports from end users,
> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
>
> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you are an end user
> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if there are still
> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you please do
> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise the bar?
I'd rather have a system where anyone can raise issues without regard to 
any role.  If there is too much "noise"  then steps can be taken  to 
help redirect people to the right place.   End users  asking questions - 
however naive  or incoherent - are still part of the community.   Having 
said that I think we need to be pro-active - see my comment above.

>     /GES
>
> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
>
>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug.
>>
>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping up.
>>
>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers.
>>
>> David Herron
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes<David.Holmes at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they come from users.
>>>
>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>>
>>> David Holmes
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>> MK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>



From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Mon May 30 09:48:54 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:48:54 +1000
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>

Steve,

Steve Poole said the following on 05/30/11 19:10:
> On 27/05/11 18:47, Georges Saab wrote:
>> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of 
>> people who contribute time
>> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But 
>> there has to be a better way
>> of handling it than the current one.
> I assume that you end up pointing a lot of these requests to some 
> external documentation?   I'm thinking that if OpenJDK's landing page 
> included pointers to FAQs , user discussion mailing lists etc that would 
> help reduce the amount of noise.

Such pointers already exist and are ignored by many bug reporters.

>> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction 
>> between bug reports from end users,
>> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
>>
>> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if 
>> you are an end user
>> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then 
>> if there are still
>> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could 
>> you please do
>> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to 
>> raise the bar?
> I'd rather have a system where anyone can raise issues without regard to 
> any role.  If there is too much "noise"  then steps can be taken  to 
> help redirect people to the right place.   End users  asking questions - 
> however naive  or incoherent - are still part of the community.   Having 
> said that I think we need to be pro-active - see my comment above.

We already know that the noise exists and is extreme. Naive questions 
don't belong in bug reports they belong on mailing lists (not current 
openJDK ones) or in forums. As a developer who does a lot of bug triage 
I do not want a system that will suddenly inundate me with bogus reports 
(the bar is often too low as it is!).

So I'm all for role-based access control on the bug system.

Regards,
David Holmes

>>     /GES
>>
>> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
>>
>>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that 
>>> David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that 
>>> stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and 
>>> needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug.
>>>
>>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them 
>>> construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and 
>>> give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious 
>>> problem in keeping up.
>>>
>>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled 
>>> both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about 
>>> method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a 
>>> potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical 
>>> confusion and answers.
>>>
>>> David Herron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes<David.Holmes at oracle.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't 
>>>> insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug 
>>>> reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need 
>>>> a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports 
>>>> don't come from contributors, they come from users.
>>>>
>>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the 
>>>> bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>>>
>>>> David Holmes
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular 
>>>>>> developers", they will post their issues
>>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and 
>>>>>> in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including 
>>>>>> contributors
>>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving 
>>>>>> parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>>> MK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> 


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Mon May 30 16:42:06 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:42:06 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>


On May 30, 2011, at 2:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> Steve Poole said the following on 05/30/11 19:10:
>> On 27/05/11 18:47, Georges Saab wrote:
>>> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people who contribute time
>>> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But there has to be a better way
>>> of handling it than the current one.
>> I assume that you end up pointing a lot of these requests to some external documentation?   I'm thinking that if OpenJDK's landing page included pointers to FAQs , user discussion mailing lists etc that would help reduce the amount of noise.
> 
> Such pointers already exist and are ignored by many bug reporters.

I have to agree with David here. 

> 
>>> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between bug reports from end users,
>>> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you are an end user
>>> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if there are still
>>> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you please do
>>> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise the bar?
>> I'd rather have a system where anyone can raise issues without regard to any role.  If there is too much "noise"  then steps can be taken  to help redirect people to the right place.   End users  asking questions - however naive  or incoherent - are still part of the community.   Having said that I think we need to be pro-active - see my comment above.
> 
> We already know that the noise exists and is extreme. Naive questions don't belong in bug reports they belong on mailing lists (not current openJDK ones) or in forums. As a developer who does a lot of bug triage I do not want a system that will suddenly inundate me with bogus reports (the bar is often too low as it is!).

I agree.

> 
> So I'm all for role-based access control on the bug system.

My tendency too.

Part of the problem with the JDK and Java in general is the number of users out there.
We want all the good bug reports we can get, but without some kind of governor or quality of input limiter
I have concerns of our ability to manage this.

-kto

> 
> Regards,
> David Holmes
> 
>>>    /GES
>>> 
>>> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug.
>>>> 
>>>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping up.
>>>> 
>>>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers.
>>>> 
>>>> David Herron
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes<David.Holmes at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from contributors, they come from users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Holmes
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular developers", they will post their issues
>>>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts, that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>>>> MK
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 



From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Mon May 30 17:03:36 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:03:36 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=trx6TiAtwfTN_0i=qeSa8EWui_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, I see the value of an access controlled system. But we should try
to make it as easy as possible for potential contributors to submit
valuable bug reports and patches without the need to become "Group
Members" with full commit rights.

As mentioned earlier, this may be done by defining a new class of
"Contributors", which is explained in the proposed bylaws as follows
(copied from Andrews mail above):

"A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
Agreement (OCA), or who works for an organization that has signed that
agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope
of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may
submit anything larger than a simple patch."

And these contributors should not only get direct and easy access to
the bug tracking system, but also to the newly proposed code review
system and the site which hosts the Webrevs. This would make the
communication between "Group members" and  "Contributors" a lot easier
and place the "Contributors" somewhere in between "Group participants"
(access to he mailing lists only) and "Group Members" (full commit
rights) as described at http://openjdk.java.net/groups/.

What do you think?
Volker

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Steve Poole said the following on 05/30/11 19:10:
>>
>> On 27/05/11 18:47, Georges Saab wrote:
>>>
>>> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people
>>> who contribute time
>>> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise. ? But
>>> there has to be a better way
>>> of handling it than the current one.
>>
>> I assume that you end up pointing a lot of these requests to some external
>> documentation? ? I'm thinking that if OpenJDK's landing page included
>> pointers to FAQs , user discussion mailing lists etc that would help reduce
>> the amount of noise.
>
> Such pointers already exist and are ignored by many bug reporters.
>
>>> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between
>>> bug reports from end users,
>>> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
>>>
>>> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you
>>> are an end user
>>> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if
>>> there are still
>>> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you
>>> please do
>>> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise
>>> the bar?
>>
>> I'd rather have a system where anyone can raise issues without regard to
>> any role. ?If there is too much "noise" ?then steps can be taken ?to help
>> redirect people to the right place. ? End users ?asking questions - however
>> naive ?or incoherent - are still part of the community. ? Having said that I
>> think we need to be pro-active - see my comment above.
>
> We already know that the noise exists and is extreme. Naive questions don't
> belong in bug reports they belong on mailing lists (not current openJDK
> ones) or in forums. As a developer who does a lot of bug triage I do not
> want a system that will suddenly inundate me with bogus reports (the bar is
> often too low as it is!).
>
> So I'm all for role-based access control on the bug system.
>
> Regards,
> David Holmes
>
>>> ? ?/GES
>>>
>>> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that
>>>> David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff
>>>> coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing
>>>> education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug.
>>>>
>>>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct
>>>> semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper
>>>> disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both
>>>> actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y
>>>> ...". ?I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source
>>>> of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers.
>>>>
>>>> David Herron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes<David.Holmes at oracle.com>
>>>> ?wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane
>>>>> once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The
>>>>> current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level
>>>>> filtering mechanism of some kind. ?Most bug reports don't come from
>>>>> contributors, they come from users.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug
>>>>> system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Holmes
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> ?wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular
>>>>>>> developers", they will post their issues
>>>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in
>>>>>>> the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts,
>>>>>>> that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>>>> MK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>


From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Mon May 30 17:40:01 2011
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:40:01 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>

Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> :
> Part of the problem with the JDK and Java in general is the number of users out there.
> We want all the good bug reports we can get, but without some kind of governor or quality of input limiter
> I have concerns of our ability to manage this.
>   
Right, we want (and need) the good bug reports. We also want them in a 
timely manner. Personally I wouldn't object to seeing some poor quality 
bug reports if it also meant getting good quality bug reports as soon as 
they are submitted.

I'll go out on a limb and also suggest that some percentage of usage 
bugs from inexperienced developers can be a good thing. It can help 
identify common pitfalls and could help to improve documentation and APIs.

As Kelly and others say, if we can somehow redirect the non-developer 
types to somewhere else then it would reduce the noise. Another thing is 
reducing the number of dups. I think the high percentage of duplicates 
today is because it's just not possible or easy to search via the 
bugs.sun.com interface. All told, I think the system should be open to 
developers to register and submit bugs themselves.

-Alan.


From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Mon May 30 18:22:04 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:22:04 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <12002F95-898E-4A66-97D7-C11EEC56F2BB@oracle.com>


> Right, we want (and need) the good bug reports. We also want them in a timely manner. Personally I wouldn't object to seeing some poor quality bug reports if it also meant getting good quality bug reports as soon as they are submitted.
	today we are down to a day's delay for both internally and externally submitted bugs and there is a daily push to
bugs.sun.com.  With the new system we can remove that delay.

> I'll go out on a limb and also suggest that some percentage of usage bugs from inexperienced developers can be a good thing. It can help identify common pitfalls and could help to improve documentation and APIs.
	yes, one sees that from both the bug reports and the forum threads.  Nobody should be discouraged from filing an issue,
the question is more when does it get validated enough for it to be useful.  We can achieve this in a couple of ways, with others
providing some form of "me too" indication.  That still doesn't guarantee it is a bug, but as you point out could indicate lack of
good documentation.

> As Kelly and others say, if we can somehow redirect the non-developer types to somewhere else then it would reduce the noise.


> All told, I think the system should be open to developers to register and submit bugs themselves.
	we should keep the model today where we do not put barriers in the way of submitting bugs.  Today you have to click
on one checkbox and you are able to start the report:

http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/

This should continue to be an option.

	Roger

From anthony.petrov at oracle.com  Mon May 30 19:02:50 2011
From: anthony.petrov at oracle.com (Anthony Petrov)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:02:50 +0400
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <12002F95-898E-4A66-97D7-C11EEC56F2BB@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<12002F95-898E-4A66-97D7-C11EEC56F2BB@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE3E9DA.70604@oracle.com>

On 5/30/2011 10:22 PM, Roger Calnan wrote:
>> All told, I think the system should be open to developers to register and submit bugs themselves.
> 	we should keep the model today where we do not put barriers in the way of submitting bugs.  Today you have to click
> on one checkbox and you are able to start the report:
> 
> http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
> 
> This should continue to be an option.

So perhaps these semi-anonymous bug reports could go through some 
filtering procedure. And those, submitted by registered users might show 
up as real bugs immediately.

--
best regards,
Anthony


From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Mon May 30 21:05:44 2011
From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:05:44 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3E9DA.70604@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<12002F95-898E-4A66-97D7-C11EEC56F2BB@oracle.com>
	<4DE3E9DA.70604@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE406A8.50802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 30/05/11 20:02, Anthony Petrov wrote:
> On 5/30/2011 10:22 PM, Roger Calnan wrote:
>>> All told, I think the system should be open to developers to 
>>> register and submit bugs themselves.
>>     we should keep the model today where we do not put barriers in 
>> the way of submitting bugs.  Today you have to click
>> on one checkbox and you are able to start the report:
>>
>> http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
>>
>> This should continue to be an option.
>
> So perhaps these semi-anonymous bug reports could go through some 
> filtering procedure. And those, submitted by registered users might 
> show up as real bugs immediately.
>
Ok, agree in general to all points made by everyone on this thread (up 
to this point of course). Felt like  I touched a nerve and that 
convinced me :-)   I  bow to the experience of the existing practitioners.


> -- 
> best regards,
> Anthony



From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Mon May 30 23:00:11 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:00:11 +1000
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4217B.20104@oracle.com>

Alan,

Alan Bateman said the following on 05/31/11 03:40:
> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> :
>> Part of the problem with the JDK and Java in general is the number of 
>> users out there.
>> We want all the good bug reports we can get, but without some kind of 
>> governor or quality of input limiter
>> I have concerns of our ability to manage this.
>>   
> Right, we want (and need) the good bug reports. We also want them in a 
> timely manner. Personally I wouldn't object to seeing some poor quality 
> bug reports if it also meant getting good quality bug reports as soon as 
> they are submitted.
> 
> I'll go out on a limb and also suggest that some percentage of usage 
> bugs from inexperienced developers can be a good thing. It can help 
> identify common pitfalls and could help to improve documentation and APIs.

I agree - but that needs to be handled by the "first tier" system (as is 
mostly done today). I don't want to be the one who has to wade through 
these issues and identify them - by the time a bug gets into bugster 
today it "should" have reasonable merit and shouldn't be a duplicate.

> As Kelly and others say, if we can somehow redirect the non-developer 
> types to somewhere else then it would reduce the noise. Another thing is 
> reducing the number of dups. I think the high percentage of duplicates 
> today is because it's just not possible or easy to search via the 
> bugs.sun.com interface. All told, I think the system should be open to 
> developers to register and submit bugs themselves.

I was with you right up to the last sentence. Having to register would 
dissuade some users from bothering to report non-bugs (but it may also 
dissuade them from submitting real bugs!). There needs to be a system 
where a report can easily be entered by anyone, but that report needs to 
be pre-processed before being accepted as a bug (in todays terms it gets 
submitted as an "incident", processed and if deemed suitable then a bug 
is created in bugster).

I prefer to see this isolation boundary maintained, because when I 
"subscribe" to see all the bugs in particular categories, then I only 
want to see real bug reports, not these initial incidents. Now if the 
bug system can easily tag these initial reports and filter them from the 
email notifications then perhaps that would be okay.

Cheers,
David


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Mon May 30 23:01:48 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 16:01:48 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <0A8FF39D-BDBB-4E82-8CD4-1376E13A5A6E@oracle.com>


On May 30, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:

> I'll go out on a limb and also suggest that some percentage of usage bugs from inexperienced developers can be a good thing. It can help identify common pitfalls and could help to improve documentation and APIs.

A big enough pile of usage bugs or hard to reproduce issues can be valuable, and may actually represent
something that should be a bug at some point.
But that data could be gathered or accumulate on an open forum/discussion page.
The catch would be if we can find enough developers to watch the forum/discussion pages and recognize
when it's time for a bug to be filed.

The thought of every forum post or question generating a bug in our database just seems wrong to me.

-kto



From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Mon May 30 23:22:19 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:19 +1000
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=trx6TiAtwfTN_0i=qeSa8EWui_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTi=trx6TiAtwfTN_0i=qeSa8EWui_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DE426AB.5060904@oracle.com>

Volker Simonis said the following on 05/31/11 03:03:
> Ok, I see the value of an access controlled system. But we should try
> to make it as easy as possible for potential contributors to submit
> valuable bug reports and patches without the need to become "Group
> Members" with full commit rights.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, this may be done by defining a new class of
> "Contributors", which is explained in the proposed bylaws as follows
> (copied from Andrews mail above):
> 
> "A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
> Agreement (OCA), or who works for an organization that has signed that
> agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope
> of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may
> submit anything larger than a simple patch."
> 
> And these contributors should not only get direct and easy access to
> the bug tracking system, but also to the newly proposed code review
> system and the site which hosts the Webrevs. This would make the
> communication between "Group members" and  "Contributors" a lot easier
> and place the "Contributors" somewhere in between "Group participants"
> (access to he mailing lists only) and "Group Members" (full commit
> rights) as described at http://openjdk.java.net/groups/.

I think there is some confusion between Group roles and Project Roles 
here (perhaps they have changed between the interim rules and the new 
proposed bylaws). Groups don't have repositories and Group members don't 
have commit rights. The basic proposed hierarchy in the draft-bylaws in 
terms of code submission and review is:

- OpenJDK Participant
- OpenJDK Contributor
- Project Author (must be a Contributor)
- Project Committer
- Project Reviewer

then in addition we have plain old users.

So my initial categorization would be:

- Anyone should be able to submit an "incident report".
- Contributors should be able to submit "bug reports".
- Contributors should be able to have read access to the code review 
system (they can always report an issue via email).
- Project Authors and above should have write access to the code review 
system.

Whether "incident reports" and "bug reports" go into two different 
systems depends on how well the systems can handle the distinction both 
in terms of easy access/use for incidents, and isolation of incidents 
from bugs.

David

> What do you think?
> Volker
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> Steve Poole said the following on 05/30/11 19:10:
>>> On 27/05/11 18:47, Georges Saab wrote:
>>>> The 'noise' problem is real and currently Oracle funds a number of people
>>>> who contribute time
>>>> and effort to the thankless task of weeding through the noise.   But
>>>> there has to be a better way
>>>> of handling it than the current one.
>>> I assume that you end up pointing a lot of these requests to some external
>>> documentation?   I'm thinking that if OpenJDK's landing page included
>>> pointers to FAQs , user discussion mailing lists etc that would help reduce
>>> the amount of noise.
>> Such pointers already exist and are ignored by many bug reporters.
>>
>>>> I wonder if part of the issue is the current lack of distinction between
>>>> bug reports from end users,
>>>> developers in general, and developers with 'skin in the game on OpenJDK'?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the first step is to have separate places to report issues if you
>>>> are an end user
>>>> versus a Java developer (and making it clear which is which), and then if
>>>> there are still
>>>> an overwhelming number of 'I am a CS student learning Java and could you
>>>> please do
>>>> my homework' coming into the developer bug database, look at how to raise
>>>> the bar?
>>> I'd rather have a system where anyone can raise issues without regard to
>>> any role.  If there is too much "noise"  then steps can be taken  to help
>>> redirect people to the right place.   End users  asking questions - however
>>> naive  or incoherent - are still part of the community.   Having said that I
>>> think we need to be pro-active - see my comment above.
>> We already know that the noise exists and is extreme. Naive questions don't
>> belong in bug reports they belong on mailing lists (not current openJDK
>> ones) or in forums. As a developer who does a lot of bug triage I do not
>> want a system that will suddenly inundate me with bogus reports (the bar is
>> often too low as it is!).
>>
>> So I'm all for role-based access control on the bug system.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David Holmes
>>
>>>>    /GES
>>>>
>>>> On 27 maj 2011, at 08.07, David Herron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to say that while what Volker said is compelling, I know that
>>>>> David Holmes is speaking the truth. Way-back-when I saw some of that stuff
>>>>> coming in and much of it was more user error or confusion and needing
>>>>> education on proper use of the API rather than it being a bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> The team when we were still at Sun had a system letting them construct
>>>>> semi canned semi customized responses in many cases, and give proper
>>>>> disposition to the entries. But they did have a serious problem in keeping
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, one can plausibly imagine a crowd sourced system that handled both
>>>>> actual bug reports and the other stuff like "I'm confused about method Y
>>>>> ...".  I always thought those questions and answers were a potential source
>>>>> of a crowd sourced knowledge base of typical confusion and answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Herron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:21 AM, David Holmes<David.Holmes at oracle.com>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Volker Simonis said the following on 05/27/11 20:11:
>>>>>>> I think it shouldn't be only writable by anyone - it should be
>>>>>>> possible to enter bugs which will become visible instantly.
>>>>>>> It wouldn't make sense to make the new system writable only by
>>>>>>> contributors taking into account that the old system at bugs.sun.com
>>>>>>> is already writable by everybody. But the way how bugs.sun.com
>>>>>>> currently handles new entries which are first kept private and then
>>>>>>> only published after a certain amount of time without any notification
>>>>>>> to the submitter is at least insane. That way you can not enter a bug
>>>>>>> and then start a discussion about it because you simply don't have a
>>>>>>> reference to it. Instead you have to manually poll the system to see
>>>>>>> when it finally appears publicly.
>>>>>> The lack of notification may be "insane" but the process isn't insane
>>>>>> once you see the volume of crud that gets submitted as bug reports. The
>>>>>> current process certainly has some issues but you need a first-level
>>>>>> filtering mechanism of some kind.  Most bug reports don't come from
>>>>>> contributors, they come from users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'd say that contributors should be able to make entries to the bug
>>>>>> system, but users should still submit via some other front-end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Holmes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael Klishin
>>>>>>> <michael.s.klishin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> mark.reinhold at oracle.com escribi?:
>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
>>>>>>>>> Contributors. It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
>>>>>>>>> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
>>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that if the bugs system will be read-only for "regular
>>>>>>>> developers", they will post their issues
>>>>>>>> on various mailing lists or won't post them anywhere at all, and in
>>>>>>>> the end it will be significantly harder for everyone, including contributors
>>>>>>>> and Oracle employees, to keep track of issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that OpenJDK is a pretty large project with many moving parts,
>>>>>>>> that would be a loss-loss situation for everyone, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My 2?.--
>>>>>>>> MK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>


From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Tue May 31 03:14:41 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:14:41 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3E9DA.70604@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<12002F95-898E-4A66-97D7-C11EEC56F2BB@oracle.com>
	<4DE3E9DA.70604@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <B8076621-017E-4BB7-90AA-E6EFC7F2BAC8@oracle.com>


> So perhaps these semi-anonymous bug reports could go through some filtering procedure. And those, submitted by registered users might show up as real bugs immediately.
	an approach we would have considered taking if we had been able to implement it in the old system would be
to have a simple filter for the registered users.  If the bugs a user is submitting are being fixed then the later ones
should become "validated" more quickly, it is done today on a more manual basis as there are a set of developers
that we know provide good reports and so we make sure their reports go in as a bug asap.   As Alan points out 
though developers should be able to see all the bugs, noise and all, it is just helpful to quickly identify those that
are more likely to be useful,

	Roger

From david at davidherron.com  Tue May 31 05:32:54 2011
From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:32:54 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik1soRkKCS2pa2oBse6rCSE4rgBtA@mail.gmail.com>

An observation ...

This thread is about the OpenJDK bug system - not the Java SE bug system (
bugs.sun.com)

The Java SE bug system has to do with the binary product shipped by Oracle.
 The OpenJDK bug system has to do with the sources maintained by the OpenJDK
project.  These are two separate things.  The Java SE product has the
zillions of users and is the one which draws all these bug reports discussed
in recent emails.

Hm..

The people at Oracle clearly will have an issue distinguishing Java SE and
OpenJDK bugs ... Ideally the Oracle team will have a single bug system to
work with that handles both Java SE and OpenJDK bugs

Bugs should arrive to OpenJDK's pile via these channels:-

   - The "good bugs" arriving via bugs.sun.com
   - The bugs found by Oracle's Java SE SQE team (my former colleagues)
   - bug submission by the OpenJDK community
   - bugs sent upstream (to OpenJDK) from downstream distros (Ubuntu,
   Fedora,  ..etc..)
   - Ditto with projects like IcedTea - though, how does one distinguish
   IcedTea from "downstream distros" or is it the same thing


The one thing of the Oracle team being able to treat bugs as both Java SE
**AND** OpenJDK bugs ... well, that sounds tough to implement.  The bug
system we had at Sun wouldn't have been capable of this.

The other part here, accepting bugs from downstream projects, might not be
terribly hard.  I'm sure it's already being done by hand where liaison
people enter bugs from their distro bug system into OpenJDK's.  But I recall
having talked with several people about any kind of automated upstreaming or
even a method of concrete linkage between bugs in a distro's bug system and
OpenJDK's.  At that time there was talk among some of a protocol for
exchanging bug data between bug systems.  But that nothing had been
implemented.

FWIW I poked at this problem a bit while still in the team at Sun and the
above was dredged from my memory of the model I'd been developing in my
mind.

+ David Herron
http://davidherron.com/


From aph at redhat.com  Tue May 31 08:54:46 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:54:46 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>

On 25/05/11 17:52, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2011/5/25 3:30 -0700, aph at redhat.com:
>> On 05/25/2011 11:08 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Every time I've had to use Bugzilla I've been amazed at how stone age
>>> it is (looking now, it has improved a little, but its still poor). Not
>>> that JIRA is perfect - the recent changes added far too much white
>>> space and blandness, making the UI harder to use (are you listening
>>> Atlassian?). Our views are not important however, what matters is
>>> usability by "real world" users that don't write open source.
>>
>> I don't believe that.  The usability of the bug database by developers
>> is critical.
> 
> I completely agree.  The primary users of this bug system are OpenJDK
> Contributors.  It will be readable by anyone, of course, but I'm not
> sure it should be writable by anyone other than Contributors.
> 
> Oracle's intent, by the way, is to continue funding an internal team
> to triage bug reports submitted by developers and users [1].

But that doesn't scale.  We really want a way of crowdsourcing all
of the bug-processing, and this is an important part of it.  Surely
it would not be the case that all bug reports disappear into a private
queue viewable only by your internal team?  That isn't going to work.

Andrew.


From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Tue May 31 09:05:56 2011
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:05:56 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE4217B.20104@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com> <4DE4217B.20104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4AF74.8000504@oracle.com>

David Holmes wrote:
>
> I agree - but that needs to be handled by the "first tier" system (as 
> is mostly done today). I don't want to be the one who has to wade 
> through these issues and identify them - by the time a bug gets into 
> bugster today it "should" have reasonable merit and shouldn't be a 
> duplicate.
It's not clear to me that we need this filtering, at least not 
initially. I can't imagine end-users seeking out the OpenJDK bug 
database, unless they have a message dialog or error log that tells them 
to go there. So if consumers could be directed somewhere else then 
there's a good chance that most of the bugs will come from developers 
that want to help by reporting a bug or maybe contributing a fix. Sure, 
we'll still get some poor quality bug reports but that is par for the 
course. I would suggest it would be better to see how it goes before 
deciding to setup a quarantine area. Another thing is that one would 
hope that an open bug database will encourage more volunteers to help, 
and so there should be more eyes on these bug reports (and so one would 
hope that the poor reports will be closed quickly).

> :
>
> I was with you right up to the last sentence. Having to register would 
> dissuade some users from bothering to report non-bugs (but it may also 
> dissuade them from submitting real bugs!). There needs to be a system 
> where a report can easily be entered by anyone, but that report needs 
> to be pre-processed before being accepted as a bug (in todays terms it 
> gets submitted as an "incident", processed and if deemed suitable then 
> a bug is created in bugster).
I don't know how many projects allow bug reports to be submitted 
anonymously. At least with bugs.openjdk.java.net you have to login, and 
same thing for other bugzillas that I've submitted bugs to. With the 
legacy bugs.sun.com then you also have to fill out a form with your 
details. One useful thing about requiring a submitter to login is that 
there is contact address, useful if follow-up is required to duplicate 
or verify a bug.

-Alan.


From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Tue May 31 09:24:47 2011
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:24:47 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <0A8FF39D-BDBB-4E82-8CD4-1376E13A5A6E@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<0A8FF39D-BDBB-4E82-8CD4-1376E13A5A6E@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4B3DF.6090503@oracle.com>

Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
>
> A big enough pile of usage bugs or hard to reproduce issues can be 
> valuable, and may actually represent
> something that should be a bug at some point.
> But that data could be gathered or accumulate on an open 
> forum/discussion page.
> The catch would be if we can find enough developers to watch the 
> forum/discussion pages and recognize
> when it's time for a bug to be filed.
>
> The thought of every forum post or question generating a bug in our 
> database just seems wrong to me.
I definitely wasn't suggesting this :-)   Rather I was saying that some 
of these bug reports can provide useful insight into how some APIs are 
(mis)used and can provide hints that we need to improve javadoc or even 
provide improved APIs to make common things easier to do.

-Alan.


From David.Holmes at oracle.com  Tue May 31 09:50:15 2011
From: David.Holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:50:15 +1000
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE4AF74.8000504@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com> <4DE4217B.20104@oracle.com>
	<4DE4AF74.8000504@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4B9D7.5040509@oracle.com>

Alan Bateman said the following on 05/31/11 19:05:
> David Holmes wrote:
>>
>> I agree - but that needs to be handled by the "first tier" system (as 
>> is mostly done today). I don't want to be the one who has to wade 
>> through these issues and identify them - by the time a bug gets into 
>> bugster today it "should" have reasonable merit and shouldn't be a 
>> duplicate.
> It's not clear to me that we need this filtering, at least not 
> initially. I can't imagine end-users seeking out the OpenJDK bug 
> database, unless they have a message dialog or error log that tells them 
> to go there. So if consumers could be directed somewhere else then 
> there's a good chance that most of the bugs will come from developers 
> that want to help by reporting a bug or maybe contributing a fix. Sure, 
> we'll still get some poor quality bug reports but that is par for the 
> course. I would suggest it would be better to see how it goes before 
> deciding to setup a quarantine area. Another thing is that one would 
> hope that an open bug database will encourage more volunteers to help, 
> and so there should be more eyes on these bug reports (and so one would 
> hope that the poor reports will be closed quickly).

Even if closed quickly I will already have seen and had to read them 
(assuming I get my subscription issues resolved :) ). In fact I'd 
probably be the person that closed them ;-)

The key thing here is whether there is one system for everything or two 
systems as we have today in Oracle. If it is the latter then I agree 
there is less need for filtering on the actual bug system. But I get the 
impression from other community members that they definitely do not want 
two systems.

It did occur to me that there may be other ways to handle this. For 
example, to borrow from current practices, if the 
quick-and-easy-submit-bug-report interface placed new bugs into a 
specific product/component grouping (say java->incidents :) ) which were 
then triaged and re-directed to more specific components, then I could 
simply not subscribe to java->incidents. Or if we reserve the initial 
submission state (new?) for these raw reports, and used a different 
state (accepted?) for the triaged ones, then I may be able to exclude 
the creation of news bugs from my notifications (of course that assumes 
I have that level of control).

Anyway without actually playing with the systems this is all speculation.

Cheers,
David

>> :
>>
>> I was with you right up to the last sentence. Having to register would 
>> dissuade some users from bothering to report non-bugs (but it may also 
>> dissuade them from submitting real bugs!). There needs to be a system 
>> where a report can easily be entered by anyone, but that report needs 
>> to be pre-processed before being accepted as a bug (in todays terms it 
>> gets submitted as an "incident", processed and if deemed suitable then 
>> a bug is created in bugster).
> I don't know how many projects allow bug reports to be submitted 
> anonymously. At least with bugs.openjdk.java.net you have to login, and 
> same thing for other bugzillas that I've submitted bugs to. With the 
> legacy bugs.sun.com then you also have to fill out a form with your 
> details. One useful thing about requiring a submitter to login is that 
> there is contact address, useful if follow-up is required to duplicate 
> or verify a bug.
> 
> -Alan.


From dalibor.topic at oracle.com  Tue May 31 10:36:54 2011
From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:36:54 +0200
Subject: How do I resign?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Bm13Kub8Ke5mDmDf2NS8LJ0zL7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=Bm13Kub8Ke5mDmDf2NS8LJ0zL7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4C4C6.1090300@oracle.com>

The second draft addresses this here: 
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09#group-member

cheers,
dalibor topic



-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador
Phone: +494023646738 <tel:+494023646738> | Mobile: +491772664192 <tel:+491772664192>
Oracle Java Platform Group

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 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: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment


From dalibor.topic at oracle.com  Tue May 31 13:06:46 2011
From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:06:46 +0200
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4E7E6.7000308@oracle.com>

On 5/31/11 10:54 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>  We really want a way of crowdsourcing all
> of the bug-processing, and this is an important part of it.

Why?

cheers,
dalibor topic
-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador
Phone: +494023646738 <tel:+494023646738> | Mobile: +491772664192 <tel:+491772664192>
Oracle Java Platform Group

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 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: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment


From aph at redhat.com  Tue May 31 13:23:21 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:23:21 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE4E7E6.7000308@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>
	<4DE4E7E6.7000308@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4EBC9.2000206@redhat.com>

On 05/31/2011 02:06 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On 5/31/11 10:54 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> We really want a way of crowdsourcing all
>> of the bug-processing, and this is an important part of it.
> 
> Why?

I think the reason was explicit in the sentence you deleted:

> But that doesn't scale.

So, it's for the same reason that we want to crowdsource the software
development.

Linus' Law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
If you funnel all bug reports through an internal closed group, you
will have a scaling problem, and there will be a bottleneck between
bug reporters and bug fixers.

Andrew.


From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Tue May 31 16:21:51 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:21:51 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <4DE4EBC9.2000206@redhat.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>
	<4DE4E7E6.7000308@oracle.com> <4DE4EBC9.2000206@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <F966F306-9B88-4036-8ED5-ACEA49DAC090@oracle.com>


> If you funnel all bug reports through an internal closed group, you
> will have a scaling problem, and there will be a bottleneck between
> bug reporters and bug fixers.
	agreed and that is why we moved away from that model.  A
continual problem with the current system that we can solve with
new system is the ability to easily search and filter all reports.

	Roger


From aph at redhat.com  Tue May 31 16:23:33 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:23:33 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <F966F306-9B88-4036-8ED5-ACEA49DAC090@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<4DE4ACD6.9080909@redhat.com>
	<4DE4E7E6.7000308@oracle.com> <4DE4EBC9.2000206@redhat.com>
	<F966F306-9B88-4036-8ED5-ACEA49DAC090@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4DE51605.2000203@redhat.com>

On 05/31/2011 05:21 PM, Roger Calnan wrote:
> 
>> If you funnel all bug reports through an internal closed group, you
>> will have a scaling problem, and there will be a bottleneck between
>> bug reporters and bug fixers.
> 	agreed and that is why we moved away from that model. 

I'm sorry, it is my impression that model is exactly what is being
proposed for OpenJDK.

Andrew.


From roger.calnan at oracle.com  Tue May 31 16:38:12 2011
From: roger.calnan at oracle.com (Roger Calnan)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:38:12 -0700
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <0A8FF39D-BDBB-4E82-8CD4-1376E13A5A6E@oracle.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<0A8FF39D-BDBB-4E82-8CD4-1376E13A5A6E@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CDC063AE-DD49-4314-8A75-C4A6ED1E257A@oracle.com>

> The thought of every forum post or question generating a bug in our database just seems wrong to me.
	I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but I must admit I have read every one of the posts in
detail....  I do believe that there is some overlap between the bug system and the forums and while 
they should be separate entities, it should be easy to move/reference items between week them.
There are the forum posts where it becomes clear that they should be a bug:

http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7022255

and it would be nice to have an easy way to convert/duplicate it as a bug, or bugs where it could be
argued that the discussion would be better served by moving it to a forum:

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4449383
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4820062

	Roger

From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Tue May 31 22:34:35 2011
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:34:35 +0100
Subject: Update on bug system for OpenJDK (web-discuss)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik1soRkKCS2pa2oBse6rCSE4rgBtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110525165220.D008A2DC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<8D6D59F4B2924507B4869B1F7E1ECA3F@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim7D6M6wpA4twSKM2LnjwaTTt1R6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDF9737.2030102@oracle.com>
	<30118FAB-F9BE-4E2C-AC3D-90ED6A7B3B97@davidherron.com>
	<16C519B5-3DA8-4A74-AC85-C186E1140EE6@oracle.com>
	<4DE35F11.3070101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DE36806.9010809@oracle.com>
	<6B05C399-A549-48EC-96D0-9E6CDABC11CF@oracle.com>
	<4DE3D671.9050104@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTik1soRkKCS2pa2oBse6rCSE4rgBtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikfwcNsFdQb3me9bzXzoLC3mFQy3A@mail.gmail.com>

On 31 May 2011 06:32, David Herron <david at davidherron.com> wrote:
> An observation ...
>
> This thread is about the OpenJDK bug system - not the Java SE bug system (
> bugs.sun.com)
>
> The Java SE bug system has to do with the binary product shipped by Oracle.
> ?The OpenJDK bug system has to do with the sources maintained by the OpenJDK
> project. ?These are two separate things. ?The Java SE product has the
> zillions of users and is the one which draws all these bug reports discussed
> in recent emails.
>
> Hm..
>
> The people at Oracle clearly will have an issue distinguishing Java SE and
> OpenJDK bugs ... Ideally the Oracle team will have a single bug system to
> work with that handles both Java SE and OpenJDK bugs
>
> Bugs should arrive to OpenJDK's pile via these channels:-
>
> ? - The "good bugs" arriving via bugs.sun.com
> ? - The bugs found by Oracle's Java SE SQE team (my former colleagues)
> ? - bug submission by the OpenJDK community
> ? - bugs sent upstream (to OpenJDK) from downstream distros (Ubuntu,
> ? Fedora, ?..etc..)
> ? - Ditto with projects like IcedTea - though, how does one distinguish
> ? IcedTea from "downstream distros" or is it the same thing
>

It's

OpenJDK
|
\/
IcedTea
|
\/
Distros

pretty much.  I don't know of any distro that packages OpenJDK as is.
For one thing, the inclusion of things like system libraries in-tree
and some questionable licensing on some files prevents it getting
through the guidelines of most.

>
> The one thing of the Oracle team being able to treat bugs as both Java SE
> **AND** OpenJDK bugs ... well, that sounds tough to implement. ?The bug
> system we had at Sun wouldn't have been capable of this.
>
> The other part here, accepting bugs from downstream projects, might not be
> terribly hard. ?I'm sure it's already being done by hand where liaison
> people enter bugs from their distro bug system into OpenJDK's.

I don't follow this.  OpenJDK doesn't have one yet...

>?But I recall
> having talked with several people about any kind of automated upstreaming or
> even a method of concrete linkage between bugs in a distro's bug system and
> OpenJDK's. ?At that time there was talk among some of a protocol for
> exchanging bug data between bug systems. ?But that nothing had been
> implemented.
>
> FWIW I poked at this problem a bit while still in the team at Sun and the
> above was dredged from my memory of the model I'd been developing in my
> mind.
>
> + David Herron
> http://davidherron.com/
>



-- 
Andrew :-)