From roman at kennke.org Wed Apr 1 11:43:51 2015 From: roman at kennke.org (Roman Kennke) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:43:51 +0200 Subject: Project proposal: Shenandoah In-Reply-To: <5519BE76.7010602@oracle.com> References: <1424371356.29919.20.camel@localhost> <5519BE76.7010602@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1427888631.3649.51.camel@kennke.org> Hi Mikael, > Having looked at your proposal in some detail, I have no reservations > about it being an OpenJDK Project. Thanks! > We are working on resolving the HotSpot Group Lead question and should > soon be able to have the HotSpot Group sponsor the Project, allowing you > to proceed to the next step in Project creation. Perfect, thank you! > As Jon said, a potential contribution of a new GC would be entirely new > territory for us, so I can't recommend a specific course of action with > respect to your JEP and its potential future integration until you have > had some time to pursue your Project under the OpenJDK umbrella, and > others have had a chance to evaluate it. > > My overriding concern is about the maintainability of the HotSpot code > base and the potential increased maintenance burden that could arise > from integration of a new GC. That's the part I have serious > reservations about, and while I understand that you're not looking to > integrate your code into HotSpot just yet, I do want to register them to > make sure that when the time comes they are given their due consideration. I totally understand your concerns, and we're putting a focus on making Shenandoah as least intrusive as we can. We might even come out with a cleaner GC interface than what we have now :-) Best regards, Roman From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 15:36:35 2015 From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:36:35 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board 2015 Election: Results In-Reply-To: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: 2015-04-01 17:30 GMT+02:00 : Hi Mark, > I'm pleased to announce that the nominees to the two At-Large > seats of the OpenJDK Governing Board have been ratified [1]. > > Yes No Abstain > Andrew Haley 47 0 10 > Doug Lea 56 0 1 > > On behalf of the Board I hereby welcome Andrew and Doug back > for another year. Congratulations! > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/poll/gb/2015/ This gives me an error, the correct address seems to be http://openjdk.java.net/poll/gb/2015 Without the trailing '/' Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Apr 1 15:40:02 2015 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:40:02 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board 2015 Election: Results In-Reply-To: References: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, Message-ID: <20150401084002.396716@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2015/4/1 8:36 -0700, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com: > 2015-04-01 17:30 GMT+02:00 : >> ... >> >> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/poll/gb/2015/ > > This gives me an error, the correct address seems to be > > http://openjdk.java.net/poll/gb/2015 > > Without the trailing '/' Fixed (with a redirect). Thanks for the report. - Mark From Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com Wed Apr 1 15:51:42 2015 From: Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com (Roger Riggs) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:51:42 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board 2015 Election: Results In-Reply-To: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <551C140E.2060303@Oracle.com> fyi Mark, The link in [1] below has a trailing '/' before the #members that prevents the link for working. Anyone who was an OpenJDK Member at the start of the voting period Roger On 4/1/2015 11:30 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the nominees to the two At-Large > seats of the OpenJDK Governing Board have been ratified [1]. > > Yes No Abstain > Andrew Haley 47 0 10 > Doug Lea 56 0 1 > > On behalf of the Board I hereby welcome Andrew and Doug back > for another year. > > Thanks to everyone who voted! > > - Mark > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/poll/gb/2015/ From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Apr 1 16:03:11 2015 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:03:11 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Governing Board 2015 Election: Results In-Reply-To: <551C140E.2060303@Oracle.com> References: <20150401083047.363085@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <551C140E.2060303@Oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150401090311.168334@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2015/4/1 8:51 -0700, roger.riggs at oracle.com: > The link in [1] below has a trailing '/' before the #members that > prevents the link for working. > > Anyone who was an OpenJDK Member > at the start of the voting period Thanks -- fixed. - Mark From simon.bjorner at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 17:00:14 2015 From: simon.bjorner at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Simon_Bj=C3=B6rner?=) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:00:14 +0200 Subject: JSON.org license terms applicable to any portions of OpenJDK 8? Message-ID: Hi! I would like to ask if there is any information available about to which portions if any of JRE 8, JDK 8 and possibly OpenJDK 8 that JSON.org license terms would apply? In http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u/jdk/rev/2551e7290450#l1.367, the THIRD_PARTY_README file got a new notice for the JSON.org license terms. The writing is that it was "provided with respect to JSON, which may be included with JRE 8 & JDK 8". Does the omission of OpenJDK 8 in this attribution mean that it does not include any portions to which these license terms would apply? If so, I'm having trouble identifying which parts of JRE 8 and JDK 8 that could warrant this notice. The only portions that seem to be in jdk-8-b132 but not in openjdk-8-b132 are Java Mission Control and Java Flight Recorder. However, these are both included in jdk-7u75-b13 which still does not have the JSON.org notice. Even if the omission of OpenJDK 8 is a mistake, so that it may also include portions under those license terms, I'm not able to find any files indicating that they would contain such portions. Of course, the wording is only "may be included" so there might not be any such portions at all. But given the nature of the JSON.org license terms, I would assume that they would not be included if not absolutely necessary. Any clarification would be helpful! Yours sincerely, Simon Bj?rner From donald.smith at oracle.com Mon Apr 6 15:27:32 2015 From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:27:32 -0400 Subject: JSON.org license terms applicable to any portions of OpenJDK 8? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5522A5E4.1020501@oracle.com> Hi Simon, I've looked into this, and it's a bug. To the best of my knowledge there is no current use JSON.org related code and this license section should be removed from the Third Party Readme. We'll get a bug open on that and fix asap. - Don On 03/04/2015 1:00 PM, Simon Bj?rner wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to ask if there is any information available about to which > portions if any of JRE 8, JDK 8 and possibly OpenJDK 8 that JSON.org > license terms would apply? > > In http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u/jdk/rev/2551e7290450#l1.367, the > THIRD_PARTY_README file got a new notice for the JSON.org license terms. > The writing is that it was "provided with respect to JSON, which may be > included with JRE 8 & JDK 8". > > Does the omission of OpenJDK 8 in this attribution mean that it does not > include any portions to which these license terms would apply? > > If so, I'm having trouble identifying which parts of JRE 8 and JDK 8 that > could warrant this notice. The only portions that seem to be in jdk-8-b132 > but not in openjdk-8-b132 are Java Mission Control and Java Flight > Recorder. However, these are both included in jdk-7u75-b13 which still does > not have the JSON.org notice. > > Even if the omission of OpenJDK 8 is a mistake, so that it may also include > portions under those license terms, I'm not able to find any files > indicating that they would contain such portions. Of course, the wording is > only "may be included" so there might not be any such portions at all. But > given the nature of the JSON.org license terms, I would assume that they > would not be included if not absolutely necessary. > > Any clarification would be helpful! > > Yours sincerely, > Simon Bj?rner From jkamens at quantopian.com Tue Apr 14 22:13:20 2015 From: jkamens at quantopian.com (Jonathan Kamens) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:13:20 -0400 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button Message-ID: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> We are trying to implement some automation with a third-party app via using "xdotool" to send X events to the app. One of the things we need to do with the app is to switch focus from one radio button to another. When we run the app on Ubuntu 14 (Unity desktop), the tab key can be used to switch to the next radio button, and the right arrow can /not/ be used. In contrast, when we run the app on Fedora 21 (GNOME 3 desktop), the right arrow key can be used and the tab key can /not/ be used. When I say "can not be used," I mean it does nothing. We're using openjdk 8 in both cases. I observed the same behavior, at least the Ubuntu half of it, in openjdk 7 as well. Since it's exactly the same app in both cases, it seems unlikely that it's the app that's responsible for the difference in behavior between the two platforms, which is why I'm coming here first to ask about it rather than going to the author of the app. Any insights anyone can offer into why the two platforms behave differently and what we can do to make them behave the same would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan Kamens From martijnverburg at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 07:02:10 2015 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:02:10 +0200 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> Message-ID: Hi Jonathan, This is the wrong list for this bug report :-). Please try awt-dev AT openjdk DOT net - thanks. Cheers, Martijn On 15 April 2015 at 00:13, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > We are trying to implement some automation with a third-party app via > using "xdotool" to send X events to the app. > > One of the things we need to do with the app is to switch focus from one > radio button to another. > > When we run the app on Ubuntu 14 (Unity desktop), the tab key can be used > to switch to the next radio button, and the right arrow can /not/ be used. > In contrast, when we run the app on Fedora 21 (GNOME 3 desktop), the right > arrow key can be used and the tab key can /not/ be used. When I say "can > not be used," I mean it does nothing. > > We're using openjdk 8 in both cases. I observed the same behavior, at > least the Ubuntu half of it, in openjdk 7 as well. > > Since it's exactly the same app in both cases, it seems unlikely that it's > the app that's responsible for the difference in behavior between the two > platforms, which is why I'm coming here first to ask about it rather than > going to the author of the app. > > Any insights anyone can offer into why the two platforms behave > differently and what we can do to make them behave the same would be > greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Kamens > > From jkamens at quantopian.com Wed Apr 15 07:11:24 2015 From: jkamens at quantopian.com (Jonathan Kamens) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 03:11:24 -0400 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> Message-ID: <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> I don't intend for it to be a bug report. I don't know if this behavior is expected or what. The fact that the app is behaving "correctly" on both platforms, just for different values of "correct," implies that there may be some reason for the discrepancy. I would like to understand that reason rather than simply assuming that it is a bug. On 04/15/2015 03:02 AM, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > This is the wrong list for this bug report :-). Please try awt-dev AT > openjdk DOT net - thanks. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 15 April 2015 at 00:13, Jonathan Kamens > wrote: > > We are trying to implement some automation with a third-party app > via using "xdotool" to send X events to the app. > > One of the things we need to do with the app is to switch focus > from one radio button to another. > > When we run the app on Ubuntu 14 (Unity desktop), the tab key can > be used to switch to the next radio button, and the right arrow > can /not/ be used. In contrast, when we run the app on Fedora 21 > (GNOME 3 desktop), the right arrow key can be used and the tab key > can /not/ be used. When I say "can not be used," I mean it does > nothing. > > We're using openjdk 8 in both cases. I observed the same behavior, > at least the Ubuntu half of it, in openjdk 7 as well. > > Since it's exactly the same app in both cases, it seems unlikely > that it's the app that's responsible for the difference in > behavior between the two platforms, which is why I'm coming here > first to ask about it rather than going to the author of the app. > > Any insights anyone can offer into why the two platforms behave > differently and what we can do to make them behave the same would > be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Kamens > > From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 07:48:32 2015 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:48:32 +0100 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> Message-ID: This is still the wrong group for this mail. discuss is for high-level discussions that really don't fit anywhere else, and is typically very low traffic. If you want an answer to your problem, you might try on awt-dev, however, note that Oracle does not officially support Ubuntu, so Oracle engineers may be unable to help you. An alternative bet might be to try on the specific Linux distro mailing lists & ask the relevant maintainers if they can help you track down the difference. Thanks, Ben On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I don't intend for it to be a bug report. I don't know if this behavior is > expected or what. The fact that the app is behaving "correctly" on both > platforms, just for different values of "correct," implies that there may be > some reason for the discrepancy. I would like to understand that reason > rather than simply assuming that it is a bug. > > On 04/15/2015 03:02 AM, Martijn Verburg wrote: >> >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> This is the wrong list for this bug report :-). Please try awt-dev AT >> openjdk DOT net - thanks. >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> On 15 April 2015 at 00:13, Jonathan Kamens > > wrote: >> >> We are trying to implement some automation with a third-party app >> via using "xdotool" to send X events to the app. >> >> One of the things we need to do with the app is to switch focus >> from one radio button to another. >> >> When we run the app on Ubuntu 14 (Unity desktop), the tab key can >> be used to switch to the next radio button, and the right arrow >> can /not/ be used. In contrast, when we run the app on Fedora 21 >> (GNOME 3 desktop), the right arrow key can be used and the tab key >> can /not/ be used. When I say "can not be used," I mean it does >> nothing. >> >> We're using openjdk 8 in both cases. I observed the same behavior, >> at least the Ubuntu half of it, in openjdk 7 as well. >> >> Since it's exactly the same app in both cases, it seems unlikely >> that it's the app that's responsible for the difference in >> behavior between the two platforms, which is why I'm coming here >> first to ask about it rather than going to the author of the app. >> >> Any insights anyone can offer into why the two platforms behave >> differently and what we can do to make them behave the same would >> be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jonathan Kamens >> >> > From donald.smith at oracle.com Wed Apr 15 13:08:03 2015 From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:08:03 -0400 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> Message-ID: <552E62B3.9040302@oracle.com> FWIW, Oracle does support Ubuntu: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/certconfig-2095354.html In fact on ARM (Oracle JDK/JRE) Ubuntu is *the* support. - Don On 15/04/2015 3:48 AM, Ben Evans wrote: > however, note that Oracle does not officially support Ubuntu, so > From ryan at jaeb.ca Thu Apr 16 12:45:31 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 06:45:31 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? Message-ID: Hi Everyone, I'm hopping over from openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net where it was recently announced the current JavaFX bug tracker is going to be merged into JBS. I'm concerned the current JBS policies are too exclusionary to be a good fit for the JavaFX community. As is, the merge is going to have an immediate, detrimental effect on the JavaFX community and, in turn, a long term detrimental effect on the quality of JavaFX. There are two points of concern: 1) Signing the Oracle Contributor Agreement is going to become a requirement for submitting JavaFX bugs. 2) Reaching the role of author to gain the privileged of submitting bugs, commenting on bugs, and voting on bugs is going to be out of reach for many members of the JavaFX community. Both of these are going to be too great a barrier to entry for many members of the JavaFX community. The JavaFX community is much smaller than the OpenJDK community, so the effect of deterring community members from contributing is going to have a much greater impact than it has on a large project like the OpenJDK. I feel like submitting bug reports, but not patches, is what allows me to provide the most value in terms of contributing back to the JavaFX community. The requirements to become a JBS author will exclude me from the community once the merge happens. I would like to know what policy changes can be made for JBS to do a better job of accommodating the JavaFX community. If anyone would like to see more detailed concerns, I encourage you to visit the openjfx-dev archives and skim the discussion that follows the original announcement. Many valid points have been made with regards to the detrimental effect the merge will have on the JavaFX community. Ryan Jaeb From neugens at redhat.com Thu Apr 16 13:16:24 2015 From: neugens at redhat.com (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:16:24 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 06:45 -0600, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > 1) Signing the Oracle Contributor Agreement is going to become a > requirement for submitting JavaFX bugs. > 2) Reaching the role of author to gain the privileged of submitting > bugs, > commenting on bugs, and voting on bugs is going to be out of reach for > many > members of the JavaFX community. I personally think the real pain point here is the inability to file bug reports if you are not an Author. """ An Author for a Project is a Contributor who has been granted the right to create changesets intended to be pushed into a specific Project?s code repositories, but does not have the right to push such changesets directly. """ Where: """ 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. A Contributor may submit changes larger than a simple patch, may propose new Projects, and may take on various roles within Groups and Projects. """ I think the bug database should be write accessible to Contributors with an history of quality contributions, not necessarily patches. This basically means that a contributor could still file bug reports (at the beginning on the mailing list, until she gets the appropriate trust points, then on the JBS) without requiring to submit patches. After all, a good bug report *is* a quality contribution. I wish the OCA requirement could be lifted for such contribution, but I don't think in all honesty this will ever happen. Btw, what are the numbers here? How many people do usually contribute to OpenJFX that are not in the in the position to become Authors? Cheers. Mario From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 15:02:52 2015 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:02:52 +0100 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: <552E62B3.9040302@oracle.com> References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> <552E62B3.9040302@oracle.com> Message-ID: Don, Good to know. You might want to update this page: https://www.java.com/en/download/help/linux_x64_install.xml which doesn't mention Ubuntu as a supported choice (which is where I was basing that claim off). Thanks, Ben On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Donald Smith wrote: > FWIW, Oracle does support Ubuntu: > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/certconfig-2095354.html > > In fact on ARM (Oracle JDK/JRE) Ubuntu is *the* support. > > - Don > > > On 15/04/2015 3:48 AM, Ben Evans wrote: >> >> however, note that Oracle does not officially support Ubuntu, so >> > From ryan at jaeb.ca Thu Apr 16 15:30:49 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:30:49 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: I realize that the lifting the OCA requirement is basically impossible. I included it in the original topic because others mentioned it as a concern. I completely understand why it needs to be a requirement and I don't think anyone can fault Oracle if they're non-negotiable on having contributors sign the OCA. In my case, Mario is correct. The author requirement is the issue. It may not seem like a big deal to someone who's a veteran code committer, but, classifying myself as an OpenJDK user, just getting to the point where I could create, build, and test a patch locally would be a fair amount of work. Suffice it to say that, for me, trying to achieve an author status isn't a good use of my time if all I want to do report bugs as I encounter them. I don't think bugs.sun.com is a good solution. It's antiquated. It's also not reasonable to expect people like me to sign the OCA and go through the extra effort necessary to create a good bug report if those contributions aren't valued enough to warrant the ability to comment or vote on the bugs we're discovering. I think it's far more likely that people like me will use other sources for reporting issues; the OTN forums, the mailing lists, StackOverflow, etc.. No one has to sign the OCA to participate in that manner. If people like me are forced out of the official bug reporting system you're not only losing those contributions, but you're encouraging everyone to make those contributions in a manner that's not going to be covered by the OCA. Mario's suggestion to have new users sign the OCA, contribute via the mailing list, and be promoted to a more permissive role in JBS would work for me. I also think it leaves the door open for new community members as long as they're willing to make a reasonable amount of effort. The only thing I'll add is that I think an openjfx-users list would probably be worth considering. Ryan Jaeb On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > > I personally think the real pain point here is the inability to file bug > reports if you are not an Author. > > """ > An Author for a Project is a Contributor who has been granted the right > to create changesets intended to be pushed into a specific Project?s > code repositories, but does not have the right to push such changesets > directly. > """ > > Where: > > """ > 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. A Contributor may submit > changes larger than a simple patch, may propose new Projects, and may > take on various roles within Groups and Projects. > """ > > I think the bug database should be write accessible to Contributors with > an history of quality contributions, not necessarily patches. > > This basically means that a contributor could still file bug reports (at > the beginning on the mailing list, until she gets the appropriate trust > points, then on the JBS) without requiring to submit patches. > > After all, a good bug report *is* a quality contribution. > > I wish the OCA requirement could be lifted for such contribution, but I > don't think in all honesty this will ever happen. > > Btw, what are the numbers here? How many people do usually contribute to > OpenJFX that are not in the in the position to become Authors? > > Cheers. > Mario > > > From richard.bair at oracle.com Thu Apr 16 15:46:51 2015 From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:46:51 -0700 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> > I personally think the real pain point here is the inability to file bug > reports if you are not an Author. What about people who file a bug via bugs.java.com , and then the OpenJDK developer adds comments (looking for additional info, etc) on the issue. Can the person who filed the bug add a comment on their issue? > Btw, what are the numbers here? How many people do usually contribute to > OpenJFX that are not in the in the position to become Authors? A LOT. I?ve attached a file with all the contributors and the number of issues that each person contributed. There are 2,346 individual JIRA accounts that have filed 1 or more issues. Of these, 1,204 accounts are for somebody that contributed a single issue. 1204 filed 1 issue 307 filed 2 issues 166 filed 3 issues 77 filed 4 issues 57 filed 5 issues 51 filed 6 issues 31 filed 7 issues 25 filed 8 issues 18 filed 9 issues 30 filed 10 issues 14 filed 11 issues 8 filed 12 issues 12 filed 13 issues 13 filed 14 issues So if we consider people who file 1-3 issues as being generally beneath the threshold of OpenJDK authorship, then we?re talking about eliminating 71% of our submitters from JBS. If there is a way for people to comment on their issues but they just have to go through bugs.java.com instead of JBS if they aren?t authors, then it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be totally wrong) that bugs.java.com was basically fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this case we?re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community. Richard (Not sure if the attachment will survive) This report was constructed by executing the following JIRA query: project = Runtime and issueFunction in aggregateExpression("OpenJFX Reporters", "reporter.countBy{it}?) The output of this I then processed by removing the opening and closing [ ] and putting the results in a file called ?reporters?, and then running this shell script: #!/bin/bash echo "" > .list for rep in `cat reporters`; do echo $rep >> .list done sed 's/:/ /g' < .list > .cleaned sort -n -k 2 .cleaned > .sorted cat .sorted The output of this is a sorted list, which I then processed with grep. From donald.smith at oracle.com Thu Apr 16 17:40:27 2015 From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:40:27 -0400 Subject: Same Java app: Tab vs. Right arrow for moving to next radio button In-Reply-To: References: <552D9100.2060803@quantopian.com> <552E0F1C.3080602@quantopian.com> <552E62B3.9040302@oracle.com> Message-ID: <552FF40B.7080003@oracle.com> Thanks Ben, it's now fixed - good catch! https://www.java.com/en/download/help/linux_x64_install.xml - Don On 16/04/2015 11:02 AM, Ben Evans wrote: > Don, > > Good to know. > > You might want to update this page: > https://www.java.com/en/download/help/linux_x64_install.xml which > doesn't mention Ubuntu as a supported choice (which is where I was > basing that claim off). > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Donald Smith wrote: >> FWIW, Oracle does support Ubuntu: >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/certconfig-2095354.html >> >> In fact on ARM (Oracle JDK/JRE) Ubuntu is *the* support. >> >> - Don >> >> >> On 15/04/2015 3:48 AM, Ben Evans wrote: >>> however, note that Oracle does not officially support Ubuntu, so >>> From ryan at jaeb.ca Thu Apr 16 19:21:00 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:21:00 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> Message-ID: I was very hesitant to start such a negative discussion as my first post to the openjfx-dev list. The recommendation to use bugs.sun.com played a large part in making me think it was necessary. For someone like me, bugs.sun.com is a "go away" page. The instructions for contributing, at least to me, give the impression that only participants that intend to become an OpenJDK (code) committer should be asking to become a contributor. The policy that only gives authors write access to JBS reinforces that interpretation. I find myself thinking "that's not my role in the community" and I go away. The contributor instructions I'm referring to are here: http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ In my opinion, any process that starts at bugs.sun.com is going to reduce the number of people contributing JavaFX bug reports. I understand the need for a well defined process, but, once that process tips to the point of being bureaucratic or cumbersome, voluntary contributors are going to quit volunteering (or never start in the first place) or invent their own process. A good example of what I mean is that it takes "at least two weeks" to process the OCA. If people have the choice between signing the OCA and waiting at least two weeks to participate, or visiting a mailing list and participating immediately, the official process doesn't matter. Instead of moderating the bug tracker you'll end up moderating the mailing list (or at least trying to). I also think Richard is being generous with his estimates. 29% retention on 2346 bug reporters means 680 people have to end up with author status in JBS. The hg churn extension (`hg churn -c`) shows me 134 people with commits to the openjfx repo right now. I think that's a good indicator of the number of contributors that are capable of, and interested in, attaining author status. It's not unreasonable to think that 90%+ of JavaFX bug reporters are like me; they're contributing bug reports, but not code. I've never used the hg churn extension before, so I would appreciate if someone is willing to double check the comitter count I've given. Ryan Jaeb On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Richard Bair wrote: > > > If there is a way for people to comment on their issues but they just have > to go through bugs.java.com instead of JBS if they aren?t authors, then > it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be totally wrong) that > bugs.java.com was basically fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this > case we?re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community. > > Richard > > > From cnewland at chrisnewland.com Thu Apr 16 19:29:16 2015 From: cnewland at chrisnewland.com (Chris Newland) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:29:16 +0100 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: +1 to all of these. I've had the same frustrating experience as many with bugs.sun.com doing a good impression of /dev/null I think with OpenJFX it's even more important to involve the community given the far more diverse range of devices that the code needs to run on. The Oracle team can't be expected to have the time or access to devices so rely on us to report issues they might never encounter and test the proposed fixes. A community area to report, track, and feed back on OpenJFX issues is clearly needed and I thought the JIRA worked well but now we need a replacement. I'll throw my hat into the ring and volunteer some time and server cycles if helpful? I've got a public OpenJFX CI server running here http://108.61.191.178/ and I'd be happy to drop some forum software on it if folks think that would help? Left-field idea: I recently reported a Canvas performance bug and Jim Graham pushed a webrev patch that I merged into my CI to produce a test build. Would it be of any use if I made a webapp that integrated with cr.openjdk.java.net and allowed you to select OpenJFX webrevs and have it spit out overlay sdk builds? Cheers, Chris On Thu, April 16, 2015 16:30, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > I realize that the lifting the OCA requirement is basically impossible. > I > included it in the original topic because others mentioned it as a concern. > I completely understand why it needs to be a requirement and I > don't think anyone can fault Oracle if they're non-negotiable on having > contributors sign the OCA. > > In my case, Mario is correct. The author requirement is the issue. It > may not seem like a big deal to someone who's a veteran code committer, > but, classifying myself as an OpenJDK user, just getting to the point > where I could create, build, and test a patch locally would be a fair > amount of work. Suffice it to say that, for me, trying to achieve an > author status isn't a good use of my time if all I want to do report bugs > as I encounter them. > > I don't think bugs.sun.com is a good solution. It's antiquated. It's > also not reasonable to expect people like me to sign the OCA and go > through the extra effort necessary to create a good bug report if those > contributions aren't valued enough to warrant the ability to comment or > vote on the bugs we're discovering. > > I think it's far more likely that people like me will use other sources > for reporting issues; the OTN forums, the mailing lists, StackOverflow, > etc.. No one has to sign the OCA to participate in that manner. If people > like me are forced out of the official bug reporting system you're not > only losing those contributions, but you're encouraging everyone to make > those contributions in a manner that's not going to be covered by the OCA. > > > Mario's suggestion to have new users sign the OCA, contribute via the > mailing list, and be promoted to a more permissive role in JBS would work > for me. I also think it leaves the door open for new community members > as long as they're willing to make a reasonable amount of effort. The > only thing I'll add is that I think an openjfx-users list would probably > be worth considering. > > Ryan Jaeb > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > > >> >> I personally think the real pain point here is the inability to file >> bug reports if you are not an Author. >> >> """ >> An Author for a Project is a Contributor who has been granted the right >> to create changesets intended to be pushed into a specific Project???s >> code repositories, but does not have the right to push such changesets >> directly. """ >> >> >> Where: >> >> >> """ >> 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. A Contributor may submit >> changes larger than a simple patch, may propose new Projects, and may >> take on various roles within Groups and Projects. """ >> >> >> I think the bug database should be write accessible to Contributors >> with an history of quality contributions, not necessarily patches. >> >> This basically means that a contributor could still file bug reports >> (at >> the beginning on the mailing list, until she gets the appropriate trust >> points, then on the JBS) without requiring to submit patches. >> >> After all, a good bug report *is* a quality contribution. >> >> >> I wish the OCA requirement could be lifted for such contribution, but I >> don't think in all honesty this will ever happen. >> >> Btw, what are the numbers here? How many people do usually contribute >> to OpenJFX that are not in the in the position to become Authors? >> >> >> Cheers. >> Mario >> >> >> >> > From anthony.vanelverdinghe at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 21:19:04 2015 From: anthony.vanelverdinghe at gmail.com (Anthony Vanelverdinghe) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:19:04 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> Hi First of all, the statement that "signing the Oracle Contributor Agreement is going to become a requirement for submitting JavaFX bugs" is clearly not true. Anyone can & will be able to file bug reports at bugs.java.com, without having to sign the OCA. While I agree bugs.java.com is in serious need of an update, I honestly think it's easier to submit a bug through bugs.java.com than through JavaFX' JIRA, simply because I don't have to log in. In my opinion, the big issue with bugs.java.com is that JBS isn't mentioned anywhere. So for any "casual" Java developer who hasn't heard of OpenJDK yet, bugs.java.com really is a black hole. However, if you know where to look, it's really not that hard to keep track of your reports & the JDK bugs that get created for it (as explained by Dalibor [1]). About the ability to comment: I think it's useful to make a distinction between bugs and features here. As for bugs: once a bug is reproducible or its cause is understood, I think the need for an ability to comment is negligible (while it may be useful to provide workarounds, I feel this only applies to a minority of the bugs & certainly doesn't justify in itself the request for general comment access). And I agree that JavaFX is different in this regard, in that it may be next to impossible to provide a simple reproducible test case. So I agree that there should be a trivial way for the developer and the bug reporter to interact, in order to pin down the problem. However, I think it's primarily up to the Oracle JavaFX developers themselves to solicit for this. As for features: the addition of the dialogs API (issue RT-12643) was referenced as a good example of the advantage of comments [2]. However, this was part of JEP 205, and every JEP has an associated mailing list for discussion. So I fully agree the community involvement significantly helped to make the dialogs API better. But I feel the discussions could equally well have taken place on the openjfx-dev mailing list (as has been done for other JEPs on their respective mailing lists already). Another reason why I'm not fond of giving everyone access to JBS, is demonstrated in RT-3458: people "commenting" on their favorite features, requesting that it be implemented ASAP or that JavaFX will otherwise die etc. Bottom line: as I see it, nothing much will change for me: instead of filling out a nice JIRA form, I'll fill out an outdated form on bugs.java.com Kind regards, Anthony Vanelverdinghe [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017101.html [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017097.html On 16/04/2015 21:21, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > I was very hesitant to start such a negative discussion as my first post to > the openjfx-dev list. The recommendation to use bugs.sun.com played a > large part in making me think it was necessary. For someone like me, > bugs.sun.com is a "go away" page. > > The instructions for contributing, at least to me, give the impression that > only participants that intend to become an OpenJDK (code) committer should > be asking to become a contributor. The policy that only gives authors > write access to JBS reinforces that interpretation. I find myself thinking > "that's not my role in the community" and I go away. The contributor > instructions I'm referring to are here: > > http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ > > In my opinion, any process that starts at bugs.sun.com is going to reduce > the number of people contributing JavaFX bug reports. I understand the > need for a well defined process, but, once that process tips to the point > of being bureaucratic or cumbersome, voluntary contributors are going to > quit volunteering (or never start in the first place) or invent their own > process. > > A good example of what I mean is that it takes "at least two weeks" to > process the OCA. If people have the choice between signing the OCA and > waiting at least two weeks to participate, or visiting a mailing list and > participating immediately, the official process doesn't matter. Instead of > moderating the bug tracker you'll end up moderating the mailing list (or at > least trying to). > > I also think Richard is being generous with his estimates. 29% retention > on 2346 bug reporters means 680 people have to end up with author status in > JBS. The hg churn extension (`hg churn -c`) shows me 134 people with > commits to the openjfx repo right now. I think that's a good indicator of > the number of contributors that are capable of, and interested in, > attaining author status. It's not unreasonable to think that 90%+ of > JavaFX bug reporters are like me; they're contributing bug reports, but not > code. > > I've never used the hg churn extension before, so I would appreciate if > someone is willing to double check the comitter count I've given. > > Ryan Jaeb > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Richard Bair > wrote: >> >> If there is a way for people to comment on their issues but they just have >> to go through bugs.java.com instead of JBS if they aren?t authors, then >> it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be totally wrong) that >> bugs.java.com was basically fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this >> case we?re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community. >> >> Richard >> >> >> > From ryan at jaeb.ca Thu Apr 16 22:05:41 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:05:41 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anthony, I see where I've misinterpreted, so I'll explain. The bug report form has a section for attaching a test case and the "Submit a Code Fix or Test Case" section on bugs.java.com indicates I should follow the contributor guidelines which involves signing the OCA. I assumed this to mean I would be expected to sign the OCA before bugs I submit with a test case would be considered. From what you say, this is not the case. I disagree that bugs.sun.com is as good as having JIRA access. I can't see a way to update bugs, I can't vote, I have to resort to bookmarks to follow bugs I'm interested in, etc.. I really value the ability to vote on bugs that affect me, so even a JIRA account with vote only access would be a step in the right direction for me. Ryan Jaeb On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Vanelverdinghe < anthony.vanelverdinghe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > First of all, the statement that "signing the Oracle Contributor Agreement > is going to become a requirement for submitting JavaFX bugs" is clearly not > true. Anyone can & will be able to file bug reports at bugs.java.com, > without having to sign the OCA. > > While I agree bugs.java.com is in serious need of an update, I honestly > think it's easier to submit a bug through bugs.java.com than through > JavaFX' JIRA, simply because I don't have to log in. > > In my opinion, the big issue with bugs.java.com is that JBS isn't > mentioned anywhere. So for any "casual" Java developer who hasn't heard of > OpenJDK yet, bugs.java.com really is a black hole. However, if you know > where to look, it's really not that hard to keep track of your reports & > the JDK bugs that get created for it (as explained by Dalibor [1]). > > About the ability to comment: I think it's useful to make a distinction > between bugs and features here. > > As for bugs: once a bug is reproducible or its cause is understood, I > think the need for an ability to comment is negligible (while it may be > useful to provide workarounds, I feel this only applies to a minority of > the bugs & certainly doesn't justify in itself the request for general > comment access). And I agree that JavaFX is different in this regard, in > that it may be next to impossible to provide a simple reproducible test > case. So I agree that there should be a trivial way for the developer and > the bug reporter to interact, in order to pin down the problem. However, I > think it's primarily up to the Oracle JavaFX developers themselves to > solicit for this. > > As for features: the addition of the dialogs API (issue RT-12643) was > referenced as a good example of the advantage of comments [2]. However, > this was part of JEP 205, and every JEP has an associated mailing list for > discussion. So I fully agree the community involvement significantly helped > to make the dialogs API better. But I feel the discussions could equally > well have taken place on the openjfx-dev mailing list (as has been done for > other JEPs on their respective mailing lists already). > > Another reason why I'm not fond of giving everyone access to JBS, is > demonstrated in RT-3458: people "commenting" on their favorite features, > requesting that it be implemented ASAP or that JavaFX will otherwise die > etc. > > Bottom line: as I see it, nothing much will change for me: instead of > filling out a nice JIRA form, I'll fill out an outdated form on > bugs.java.com > > Kind regards, > Anthony Vanelverdinghe > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017101.html > [2] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017097.html > > > On 16/04/2015 21:21, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > >> I was very hesitant to start such a negative discussion as my first post >> to >> the openjfx-dev list. The recommendation to use bugs.sun.com played a >> large part in making me think it was necessary. For someone like me, >> bugs.sun.com is a "go away" page. >> >> The instructions for contributing, at least to me, give the impression >> that >> only participants that intend to become an OpenJDK (code) committer should >> be asking to become a contributor. The policy that only gives authors >> write access to JBS reinforces that interpretation. I find myself >> thinking >> "that's not my role in the community" and I go away. The contributor >> instructions I'm referring to are here: >> >> http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ >> >> In my opinion, any process that starts at bugs.sun.com is going to reduce >> the number of people contributing JavaFX bug reports. I understand the >> need for a well defined process, but, once that process tips to the point >> of being bureaucratic or cumbersome, voluntary contributors are going to >> quit volunteering (or never start in the first place) or invent their own >> process. >> >> A good example of what I mean is that it takes "at least two weeks" to >> process the OCA. If people have the choice between signing the OCA and >> waiting at least two weeks to participate, or visiting a mailing list and >> participating immediately, the official process doesn't matter. Instead >> of >> moderating the bug tracker you'll end up moderating the mailing list (or >> at >> least trying to). >> >> I also think Richard is being generous with his estimates. 29% retention >> on 2346 bug reporters means 680 people have to end up with author status >> in >> JBS. The hg churn extension (`hg churn -c`) shows me 134 people with >> commits to the openjfx repo right now. I think that's a good indicator of >> the number of contributors that are capable of, and interested in, >> attaining author status. It's not unreasonable to think that 90%+ of >> JavaFX bug reporters are like me; they're contributing bug reports, but >> not >> code. >> >> I've never used the hg churn extension before, so I would appreciate if >> someone is willing to double check the comitter count I've given. >> >> Ryan Jaeb >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Richard Bair >> wrote: >> >>> >>> If there is a way for people to comment on their issues but they just >>> have >>> to go through bugs.java.com instead of JBS if they aren?t authors, then >>> it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be totally wrong) that >>> bugs.java.com was basically fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this >>> case we?re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From aph at redhat.com Fri Apr 17 07:35:05 2015 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:35:05 +0100 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5530B7A9.2010809@redhat.com> On 16/04/15 13:45, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > I'm concerned the current JBS policies are too exclusionary to be a good > fit for the JavaFX community. As is, the merge is going to have an > immediate, detrimental effect on the JavaFX community and, in turn, a long > term detrimental effect on the quality of JavaFX. There are two points of > concern: > > 1) Signing the Oracle Contributor Agreement is going to become a > requirement for submitting JavaFX bugs. > > 2) Reaching the role of author to gain the privileged of submitting bugs, > commenting on bugs, and voting on bugs is going to be out of reach for many > members of the JavaFX community. To be honest, the current JBS policies are not a great fit with OpenJDK either, for the same reasons you describe. I would love to be able to grant real open access to bugs.openjdk.java.net. But you have to sympathize with Oracle, who don't have an army of people to sort out all the junk that would accumulate. So, for that to happen we'd need to find a way for the community to solve that problem. Also, there are legal issues to do with intellectual property, and we do need to be sure that OpenJDK has the right to use all material people include in bug reports. However, I can't think of any good reason why a bug submitter needs to have Author status. This is something I can raise with the Governing Board. We use an external bug tracker at IcedTea. That was necessary in the past, when we didn't have any kind of an OpenJDK bug tracker. I'm worried that might happen again. That would be bad for OpenJDK, but at least people could get on with their lives. Andrew. From krueger at lesspain.de Fri Apr 17 07:35:38 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:35:38 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Chris Newland wrote: > +1 to all of these. > > I've had the same frustrating experience as many with bugs.sun.com doing a > good impression of /dev/null > > I think with OpenJFX it's even more important to involve the community > given the far more diverse range of devices that the code needs to run on. > Add to that the fact that it is really not mature yet, both in terms of api and in terms of implementation quality (the decision to make JFX 8 part of a production JDK release can only be viewed as a political/marketing trade-off type decision not one based on technical realities as far as my experiences with it are concerned) and the community is really small compared to other technologies, so we (people interested in JFX becoming a success including Oracle) need every help we can get. From krueger at lesspain.de Fri Apr 17 08:11:51 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:11:51 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> Message-ID: Just for statistics to add another data point: My requirements (ISV with java-based products) would be 1) to be able to submit my bug reports - bugs.java.com is fine for me just for the process of submitting the report if searching, tracking is done in a jira-based system 2) to track activities on my issue and those that matter for my work (changes in priority, target release, comments etc.) - as far as I understand it, that is not possible with JBS, because I am not eligible for an account because I am not an Author (I have submitted 10 Jira Issues, 8 of which were accepted as defects and I have more in the pipeline for which I have not had the time to build a test case yet). 3) to be able interact with the developers working on the issue, so they can give me feedback or ask for additional information I did not provide with the original bug report - not possible with the proposed change AFAICS 4) being able to comment, which is admittedly a two-edged sword. For me it's not a hard requirement and I understand that discussions will take place in Jira that should not but on the other hand you lose stuff like my comment on JFX RT-40024 where you get qualified help, you don't have to pay for. I would be surprised if you took the Jira history of people like Scott Palmer, if you would not find quite a few of those. 2) Could be addressed rather easily with a change in JBS policy to allow read-only accounts where people can add issues to their watch lists 3) That's what bug trackers are used for in most OSS projects I know. I don't see an easy replacement. Private email does not really make too much sense here All of these could probably be addressed with a not too dramatic change in JBS policy that introduced an additional role. Author is not a good fit for people like myself. I do not want to and should bot be able to change issue state. But why not introduce a Role like "Power-User" (naming is always the hardest part) with which people can submit issues and add comments and attachments? Have people ask for that role and grant it to them based on their past bug reports submitted via bugs.java.com and maybe add information about that possibility to the automatic reply one gets when submitting a bug report to bugs.java.com. Another side note. One guy in our dev team brought up the soft aspect of people not getting their credits for submitting a qualified bug report which in some cases takes hours of work. He did that once for the JDK and was quite annoyed that his name got replaced by that of an Oracle employee when the ticket was migrated from one system to the other. In terms of open source spirit Java can and should learn a bit from other communities. Most of our developers are active in other open source projects and when comparing, Java feels rather at the low-end as far as community friendliness is concerned. On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Richard Bair wrote: > > I personally think the real pain point here is the inability to file bug > > reports if you are not an Author. > > What about people who file a bug via bugs.java.com , > and then the OpenJDK developer adds comments (looking for additional info, > etc) on the issue. Can the person who filed the bug add a comment on their > issue? > > > Btw, what are the numbers here? How many people do usually contribute to > > OpenJFX that are not in the in the position to become Authors? > > A LOT. I?ve attached a file with all the contributors and the number of > issues that each person contributed. > > There are 2,346 individual JIRA accounts that have filed 1 or more issues. > Of these, 1,204 accounts are for somebody that contributed a single issue. > > 1204 filed 1 issue > 307 filed 2 issues > 166 filed 3 issues > 77 filed 4 issues > 57 filed 5 issues > 51 filed 6 issues > 31 filed 7 issues > 25 filed 8 issues > 18 filed 9 issues > 30 filed 10 issues > 14 filed 11 issues > 8 filed 12 issues > 12 filed 13 issues > 13 filed 14 issues > > So if we consider people who file 1-3 issues as being generally beneath > the threshold of OpenJDK authorship, then we?re talking about eliminating > 71% of our submitters from JBS. > > If there is a way for people to comment on their issues but they just have > to go through bugs.java.com instead of JBS if > they aren?t authors, then it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I > could be totally wrong) that bugs.java.com was > basically fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this case we?re alienating > nearly 3/4 of our community. > > Richard > > > > (Not sure if the attachment will survive) > > This report was constructed by executing the following JIRA query: > > project = Runtime and issueFunction in aggregateExpression("OpenJFX > Reporters", "reporter.countBy{it}?) > > The output of this I then processed by removing the opening and closing [ > ] and putting the results in a file called ?reporters?, and then running > this shell script: > > #!/bin/bash > > echo "" > .list > for rep in `cat reporters`; do > echo $rep >> .list > done > > sed 's/:/ /g' < .list > .cleaned > sort -n -k 2 .cleaned > .sorted > cat .sorted > > The output of this is a sorted list, which I then processed with grep. > > > -- Robert Kr?ger Managing Partner Lesspain GmbH & Co. KG www.lesspain-software.com From krueger at lesspain.de Fri Apr 17 08:14:20 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:14:20 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> Message-ID: I forgot to add. Having to sign an OCA to get a JBS account would not be a show-stopper for me. On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Robert Kr?ger wrote: > Just for statistics to add another data point: > > > From Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it Fri Apr 17 09:24:22 2015 From: Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it (Fabrizio Giudici) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:24:22 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:19:04 +0200, Anthony Vanelverdinghe wrote: > As for bugs: once a bug is reproducible or its cause is understood, I > think the need for an ability to comment is negligible (while it may be > useful to provide workarounds, I feel this only applies to a minority of > the bugs & certainly doesn't justify in itself the request for general > comment access). And I agree that JavaFX is different in this regard, in I can't speak in number, because I only have my perspective, and the one of customers. But comments about workarounds are fundamental to me - let me add: even the lack of comments about workarounds, because in the end what one needs is to have his app working. Knowing that there are no workarounds is also a good point because at least you know that you have to spend some time to change approach in your app (e.g. using another API, or escalating the problem internally). I can have a reasonable info that there are no workarounds if I see no comments about them _and_ I know that people can freely comment. Workarounds often are even more important than fixes, in the short-medium term, for the obvious reason that they can be done immediately, without waiting for a new release, and without all the doubts about how long Oracle will take to fix the problem. Not counting the fact that, unfortunately, many corporates still work on JDK releases that are out-of-life. > Another reason why I'm not fond of giving everyone access to JBS, is > demonstrated in RT-3458: people "commenting" on their favorite features, > requesting that it be implemented ASAP or that JavaFX will otherwise die > etc. That's a real problem, I agree. -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. "We make Java work. Everywhere." http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giudici at tidalwave.it From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Fri Apr 17 10:02:53 2015 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:02:53 +0100 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5530DA4D.2010900@oracle.com> On 17/04/2015 09:11, Robert Kr?ger wrote: > : > > Another side note. One guy in our dev team brought up the soft aspect of > people not getting their credits for submitting a qualified bug report > which in some cases takes hours of work. He did that once for the JDK and > was quite annoyed that his name got replaced by that of an Oracle employee > when the ticket was migrated from one system to the other. Just on this point. Bugs submitted via bugs.sun.com that get moved to the JDK project in JBS show up as being reported by "Webbug Group". There was a short period of time when the systems were initially linked up where moving issues caused the JIRA Reporter field to be set to whoever moved the issue. That was very annoying for anyone moving an issue too. I don't know if this is what got your colleague's goat but it has been fixed for a long time. As to why bugs show up as being reported by "Webbug Group" then I don't know, but I could imagine getting into non-technical issues around information use when moving names and email addresses between systems. -Alan. From krueger at lesspain.de Fri Apr 17 10:12:22 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:12:22 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <5530DA4D.2010900@oracle.com> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <5530DA4D.2010900@oracle.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 17/04/2015 09:11, Robert Kr?ger wrote: > >> : >> >> Another side note. One guy in our dev team brought up the soft aspect of >> people not getting their credits for submitting a qualified bug report >> which in some cases takes hours of work. He did that once for the JDK and >> was quite annoyed that his name got replaced by that of an Oracle employee >> when the ticket was migrated from one system to the other. >> > Just on this point. Bugs submitted via bugs.sun.com that get moved to the > JDK project in JBS show up as being reported by "Webbug Group". There was a > short period of time when the systems were initially linked up where moving > issues caused the JIRA Reporter field to be set to whoever moved the issue. > That was very annoying for anyone moving an issue too. I don't know if this > is what got your colleague's goat but it has been fixed for a long time. As > to why bugs show up as being reported by "Webbug Group" then I don't know, > but I could imagine getting into non-technical issues around information > use when moving names and email addresses between systems. OK, thanks for explaining. From Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it Fri Apr 17 10:14:22 2015 From: Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it (Fabrizio Giudici) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:14:22 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:35:38 +0200, Robert Kr?ger wrote: > Add to that the fact that it is really not mature yet, both in terms of > api > and in terms of implementation quality (the decision to make JFX 8 part > of > a production JDK release can only be viewed as a political/marketing > trade-off type decision not one based on technical realities as far as my I think it depends on the perspective. Yes, in the comparison after many years of Swing there are still missing bits, but I'm already seeing production apps, even afre complex and critical ones, happily running in JavaFX and JDK 1.8.0. And having the JFX runtime in the JDK 8, while not a fundamental point, anyway simplified something. Also, it gave some final push to the fact that JFX was _the_ Swing replacement - yes, this a political point, but with some impact. -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. "We make Java work. Everywhere." http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giudici at tidalwave.it From krueger at lesspain.de Fri Apr 17 10:46:38 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:46:38 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:35:38 +0200, Robert Kr?ger > wrote: > > Add to that the fact that it is really not mature yet, both in terms of >> api >> and in terms of implementation quality (the decision to make JFX 8 part of >> a production JDK release can only be viewed as a political/marketing >> trade-off type decision not one based on technical realities as far as my >> > > I think it depends on the perspective. Yes, in the comparison after many > years of Swing there are still missing bits, but And probably on the platform. I have yet to verify that it's different on Windows but on the Mac I ran into a number of things that are too broken to work in certain use cases/contexts that are very well within the declared scope of JFX only after very little time of development and I am not talking about weird corner cases. I am not saying that you can't publish a commercial app if you stick to the right platform and subset of functionality but that's a very different thing from a production-quality release. Neither am I saying it was a bad move to make it part of Java 8. It just doesn't mean it really has reached the quality this would normally require but all this is probably OT on this list. From daniel.latremoliere at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 11:39:54 2015 From: daniel.latremoliere at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIExhdHLDqW1vbGnDqHJl?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:39:54 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <5530B7A9.2010809@redhat.com> References: <5530B7A9.2010809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <5530F10A.1090007@gmail.com> Allowing external people to subscribe to an issue (put an e-mail address and receive automatically all changes/comments on this issue) would not create any junk in JBS, but would already be useful for users to detect some changes of OpenJDK in impacting bugs (then download a weekly build and test). A followed bug would be less fire-and-forget, even if this is not solving problems for features (mailing-list?). Daniel. > To be honest, the current JBS policies are not a great fit with > OpenJDK either, for the same reasons you describe. I would love to be > able to grant real open access to bugs.openjdk.java.net. But you have > to sympathize with Oracle, who don't have an army of people to sort > out all the junk that would accumulate. So, for that to happen we'd > need to find a way for the community to solve that problem. From ryan at jaeb.ca Fri Apr 17 14:29:38 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:29:38 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> Message-ID: I've stepped through the process at bugs.java.com a few more times and each time I find myself more annoyed. For anyone who's seen my last few posts, you'll see that I was under the impression that following the contributor guidelines would be a requirement for me to submit bugs. Since I think a large portion of the fault for that misconception lies with the bugs.java.com page, I'm going to give a detailed step through of my thought process when I go there. I'll put my thoughts in parentheses. I need to file a bug. I visit bugs.java.com. There are 3 sections on the landing page: 1) Report an Issue. (These are the instructions I need to follow if I want to file a bug) 2) Suggest an Enhancement. (These are the instructions I need to follow if I want to file a RFE) 3) Submit a Code Fix or Test Case. (These are the instructions I need to follow if I want to submit a patch or a test case. I have a code sample, but I wouldn't consider it a (ex: junit) test case, so I'll skip this for now and come back if needed.) I want to file a bug, so I click through, fill out the initial form, and land on the main form. I start filling out my bug and I get to the section "Source code for an executable test case" (The term "test case" is only used in exactly two spots; here and in the original instructions. This is the only place those instructions could be referring to, so I better go back and read those guidelines I skipped). I go back and follow the link to the contributor guidelines. This is the point where I give up because I'm under the false impression I need to sign the OCA and complete the steps required to become a JBS author if I want to include a test case (aka code sample) with my bug report. I now know the "Submit a Code Fix or Test Case" section contains instructions for people that want to _bypass_ bugs.java.com, but how am I supposed to figure that out from the information on that page? There's no mention of an alternate bug tracker. Even knowing there's an alternate bug tracker, bugs.java.com is presented as though all of the information is intended for people that want to _use_ bugs.java.com. To me, it makes sense that a developer might want to cut and paste from a submitted test case (aka code example) to build a (ex: junit) test case. It's not crazy to think that Oracle would want everyone including test cases with their bugs to sign the OCA because of that and it becomes easy to believe that my (mis)interpretation of the instructions is correct. I'm also guessing the terminology overlap is obvious here. The bug report form should probably be asking for something like an SSCCE ( http://sscce.org/), not a test case since the term test case implies you want a formal (ex: junit) test case. In my opinion, there are 2 improvements that could be made to bugs.java.com: 1) There should be a link to bugs.openjdk.java.net. 2) It should be made clear the contributor guidelines are not applicable if all you want to do is file a simple bug report. If I had to write the third section on that page, it'd be something similar to: Become An OpenJDK Contributor OpenJDK contributors can file bugs directly at bugs.openjdk.java.net rather than using the resources on this page. If you would like to become an OpenJDK contributor, please start by following the contributor guidelines. Alternatively, the third section shouldn't even be on that page. To me, instructions to become a contributor, especially at the level of a JBS author, don't belong in the bug system; they belong on the project pages (ex: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/openjfx/ or https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/OpenJFX/Main). Ryan Jaeb On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Chris Newland wrote: > +1 to all of these. > > I've had the same frustrating experience as many with bugs.sun.com doing a > good impression of /dev/null > > From anthony.vanelverdinghe at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 14:58:16 2015 From: anthony.vanelverdinghe at gmail.com (Anthony Vanelverdinghe) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:58:16 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55311F88.6000003@gmail.com> Hi Ryan Thanks for explaining. I'd assume the "Test Case" in that section refers to contributing an actual test to OpenJDK (as in: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/84c5527f742b/test ). I agree the naming of the last section is rather confusing, but the page is actually quite logical: a first section to report bugs, a second to suggest enhancements, and a third to contribute yourself. Please note that I never said bugs.sun.com is as good as having JIRA access. What I said is that I don't see much difference between filling out a form in JavaFX' JIRA, or filling out a form at bugs.java.com. And that actually, I feel reporting a bug at bugs.java.com is easier. Firstly, because there's no need to log in. Secondly, because the form at bugs.java.com has separate fields, a.o. for "Source code for an executable test case", "Expected result", "Actual result", "Workaround", etc. On the contrary, the JIRA form is actually quite limited: there's only a single "Description" field to include all these details. What I tried to convey in my previous message, is that I feel allowing public access to the JBS isn't necessarily the best option. I agree that a JIRA account with vote-only access would be nice, as a way for developers to show the bug affects them. Even more so since voting isn't really used at the moment (the JDK project has only 193 bugs with votes, 61 of which haven't been resolved yet). However, I also understand Oracle's reluctance to changing the JBS policy. And I feel the added value of voting is debatable: in most cases, the OpenJDK developers will make a correct estimate of how important a bug is and set the priority accordingly. PS: for following bugs you're interested in: what I do, is register the RSS feeds in my e-mail client (Thunderbird) & this works really well for me Kind regards, Anthony On 17/04/2015 0:05, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > Anthony, I see where I've misinterpreted, so I'll explain. > > The bug report form has a section for attaching a test case and the > "Submit a Code Fix or Test Case" section on bugs.java.com > indicates I should follow the contributor > guidelines which involves signing the OCA. I assumed this to mean I > would be expected to sign the OCA before bugs I submit with a test > case would be considered. From what you say, this is not the case. > > I disagree that bugs.sun.com is as good as > having JIRA access. I can't see a way to update bugs, I can't vote, I > have to resort to bookmarks to follow bugs I'm interested in, etc.. I > really value the ability to vote on bugs that affect me, so even a > JIRA account with vote only access would be a step in the right > direction for me. > > Ryan Jaeb > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Vanelverdinghe > > wrote: > > Hi > > First of all, the statement that "signing the Oracle Contributor > Agreement is going to become a requirement for submitting JavaFX > bugs" is clearly not true. Anyone can & will be able to file bug > reports at bugs.java.com , without having to > sign the OCA. > > While I agree bugs.java.com is in serious > need of an update, I honestly think it's easier to submit a bug > through bugs.java.com than through JavaFX' > JIRA, simply because I don't have to log in. > > In my opinion, the big issue with bugs.java.com > is that JBS isn't mentioned anywhere. So > for any "casual" Java developer who hasn't heard of OpenJDK yet, > bugs.java.com really is a black hole. > However, if you know where to look, it's really not that hard to > keep track of your reports & the JDK bugs that get created for it > (as explained by Dalibor [1]). > > About the ability to comment: I think it's useful to make a > distinction between bugs and features here. > > As for bugs: once a bug is reproducible or its cause is > understood, I think the need for an ability to comment is > negligible (while it may be useful to provide workarounds, I feel > this only applies to a minority of the bugs & certainly doesn't > justify in itself the request for general comment access). And I > agree that JavaFX is different in this regard, in that it may be > next to impossible to provide a simple reproducible test case. So > I agree that there should be a trivial way for the developer and > the bug reporter to interact, in order to pin down the problem. > However, I think it's primarily up to the Oracle JavaFX developers > themselves to solicit for this. > > As for features: the addition of the dialogs API (issue RT-12643) > was referenced as a good example of the advantage of comments [2]. > However, this was part of JEP 205, and every JEP has an associated > mailing list for discussion. So I fully agree the community > involvement significantly helped to make the dialogs API better. > But I feel the discussions could equally well have taken place on > the openjfx-dev mailing list (as has been done for other JEPs on > their respective mailing lists already). > > Another reason why I'm not fond of giving everyone access to JBS, > is demonstrated in RT-3458: people "commenting" on their favorite > features, requesting that it be implemented ASAP or that JavaFX > will otherwise die etc. > > Bottom line: as I see it, nothing much will change for me: instead > of filling out a nice JIRA form, I'll fill out an outdated form on > bugs.java.com > > Kind regards, > Anthony Vanelverdinghe > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017101.html > [2] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2015-April/017097.html > > > On 16/04/2015 21:21, Ryan Jaeb wrote: > > I was very hesitant to start such a negative discussion as my > first post to > the openjfx-dev list. The recommendation to use bugs.sun.com > played a > large part in making me think it was necessary. For someone > like me, > bugs.sun.com is a "go away" page. > > The instructions for contributing, at least to me, give the > impression that > only participants that intend to become an OpenJDK (code) > committer should > be asking to become a contributor. The policy that only gives > authors > write access to JBS reinforces that interpretation. I find > myself thinking > "that's not my role in the community" and I go away. The > contributor > instructions I'm referring to are here: > > http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ > > In my opinion, any process that starts at bugs.sun.com > is going to reduce > the number of people contributing JavaFX bug reports. I > understand the > need for a well defined process, but, once that process tips > to the point > of being bureaucratic or cumbersome, voluntary contributors > are going to > quit volunteering (or never start in the first place) or > invent their own > process. > > A good example of what I mean is that it takes "at least two > weeks" to > process the OCA. If people have the choice between signing > the OCA and > waiting at least two weeks to participate, or visiting a > mailing list and > participating immediately, the official process doesn't > matter. Instead of > moderating the bug tracker you'll end up moderating the > mailing list (or at > least trying to). > > I also think Richard is being generous with his estimates. > 29% retention > on 2346 bug reporters means 680 people have to end up with > author status in > JBS. The hg churn extension (`hg churn -c`) shows me 134 > people with > commits to the openjfx repo right now. I think that's a good > indicator of > the number of contributors that are capable of, and interested in, > attaining author status. It's not unreasonable to think that > 90%+ of > JavaFX bug reporters are like me; they're contributing bug > reports, but not > code. > > I've never used the hg churn extension before, so I would > appreciate if > someone is willing to double check the comitter count I've given. > > Ryan Jaeb > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Richard Bair > > > wrote: > > > If there is a way for people to comment on their issues > but they just have > to go through bugs.java.com instead > of JBS if they aren?t authors, then > it isn?t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be > totally wrong) that > bugs.java.com was basically > fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this > case we?re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community. > > Richard > > > > > > From ryan at jaeb.ca Fri Apr 17 17:20:44 2015 From: ryan at jaeb.ca (Ryan Jaeb) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:20:44 -0600 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <5530B7A9.2010809@redhat.com> References: <5530B7A9.2010809@redhat.com> Message-ID: Who moderates everything right now? It doesn't sound like there's anything preventing me from submitting a poor quality bug report at bugs.java.com. Does that go directly into bugs.openjdk.java.net? How is the free-for-all submission system at bugs.java.com any different than a self signup JIRA? Somebody has to moderate the initial bugs regardless of where they come from, right? Is it an increase in comment spam that's the main concern? If the concern is +1s and discussion style comments the question I'll ask is, "what difference does it make?" If contributors are discussing a bug or feature request, everyone participating needs to read all of the discussion, regardless of whether or not it happens on the bug tracker or the mailing list. If you keep JBS invite only and use the mailing lists as a source for nominating people to invite, I don't think you're taking a huge risk in terms of overloading JBS authors with extra comment spam. You're only allowing users that have already proven they're willing to adhere to the process and participate in an appropriate manner. Plus, most (all?) JBS authors are already going to subscribe to the lists and anyone that would be promoted via a list is already willing (and able) to post there. If I post to a list with "RE: Bug XXXXX" and the message content is "+1" it still wastes everyone's time. No one involved in that bug gets to skip that message because the venue was moved from JBS to a list. I'm not saying that type of behavior should be tolerated, just that people who don't care about participating appropriately don't care what the venue is either. If you invite someone to the bug tracker, there's also the added benefit of having them sign the OCA isn't there? Ryan Jaeb On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > To be honest, the current JBS policies are not a great fit with > OpenJDK either, for the same reasons you describe. I would love to be > able to grant real open access to bugs.openjdk.java.net. But you have > to sympathize with Oracle, who don't have an army of people to sort > out all the junk that would accumulate. So, for that to happen we'd > need to find a way for the community to solve that problem. > > Also, there are legal issues to do with intellectual property, and we > do need to be sure that OpenJDK has the right to use all material > people include in bug reports. > > Andrew. > From neugens at redhat.com Mon Apr 20 08:55:33 2015 From: neugens at redhat.com (Mario Torre) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:55:33 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 11:24 +0200, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: > I can't speak in number, because I only have my perspective, and the one > of customers. But comments about workarounds are fundamental to me - let > me add: even the lack of comments about workarounds, because in the end > what one needs is to have his app working But I don't think this is the bug database role, this is for a knowledge base forum. A bug database is a place to file bugs, not to offer customer support or workarounds, offering workarounds in a bug report should be limited to a minimum and only for particularly nasty, widespread, or un-fixable bugs. If the JavaFX Community needs such a place, it should create a separate tracking system that offer workarounds and help triaging those bugs into the main bug database. Ultimately, while the JBS rules are not the best around (even for OpenJDK use, as Andrew Haley noted), and I'm all in favor of reconsidering them to be more open, it seems to me that what the OpenJFX community needs more at this stage is a bridge between the two worlds, rather than a more open bug database. Somebody should perhaps consider to join the Adoption group (I think this would be the appropriate place) and use this as a way to fill the gap? Cheers, Mario From cnewland at chrisnewland.com Mon Apr 20 12:17:47 2015 From: cnewland at chrisnewland.com (Chris Newland) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:17:47 +0100 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> Message-ID: <4b3db66c5818543ae4c4536c010cbff3.squirrel@excalibur.xssl.net> On Mon, April 20, 2015 09:55, Mario Torre wrote: > Somebody should perhaps consider to join the Adoption group (I think > this would be the appropriate place) and use this as a way to fill the gap? > > > Cheers, > Mario > Hi Mario, What do you think the role of this "link person" would be? I'm not a Member (capital M) of any OpenJDK projects but I'd be happy to collect bugs and feature requests and promote OpenJFX at hackdays and within the London Java Community where most of the Adoption group are active. I think that to address the feedback gap once the OpenJFX JIRA goes away we will also need a technical solution. Personally I would find the following feature set useful: * Forum for discussion * Open for reading, create account to post * Tracks JBS and can provide notifications on updates * Ability to tick webrevs from cr.openjdk.java.net and build them in a CI to produce overlay builds for easy testing Would anyone else find that useful? Cheers, Chris From Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it Mon Apr 20 13:06:46 2015 From: Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it (Fabrizio Giudici) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:06:46 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:55:33 +0200, Mario Torre wrote: > On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 11:24 +0200, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: >> I can't speak in number, because I only have my perspective, and the one >> of customers. But comments about workarounds are fundamental to me - let >> me add: even the lack of comments about workarounds, because in the end >> what one needs is to have his app working > > But I don't think this is the bug database role, this is for a knowledge > base forum. I think that bug databases are excellent in this role, indeed it doesn't matter a lot the kind of infrastructure, bug tracker or forum. If it's HTML, human-readable and googlable, it's ok. In the past I've found myself googling around for problems (e.g. with Hibernate) and I got the solution... into my own instance of Jira, where years before I've posted a problem+workaround about one of my projects, that in the end was related to the Hibernate problem. Since the issue was well described, there was the workaround I originally applied to my code (which proved to work fine even for my more recent need) and the link to the original Hibernate bug, to have the details. > A bug database is a place to file bugs, not to offer customer support or > workarounds, offering workarounds in a bug report should be limited to a > minimum and only for particularly nasty, widespread, or un-fixable bugs. See above - plus, in the old bugs.sun.com there's a specific place for workarounds. What is the rationale for restricting the policy for documenting workarounds? What are the benefits of writing less information? > > If the JavaFX Community needs such a place, it should create a separate > tracking system that offer workarounds and help triaging those bugs into > the main bug database. To me either is fine, the only requisite is that the info is easily traceable and googlable. The important point is that the path from entering the search in google about the bug and getting to the best information about the bug, including workarounds, is the shortest. Honestly I think that this happens when all the info are in the same place. -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. "We make Java work. Everywhere." http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giudici at tidalwave.it From krueger at lesspain.de Mon Apr 20 13:45:19 2015 From: krueger at lesspain.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Robert_Kr=C3=BCger?=) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:45:19 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:55:33 +0200, Mario Torre > wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 11:24 +0200, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: >> >>> I can't speak in number, because I only have my perspective, and the one >>> of customers. But comments about workarounds are fundamental to me - let >>> me add: even the lack of comments about workarounds, because in the end >>> what one needs is to have his app working >>> >> >> But I don't think this is the bug database role, this is for a knowledge >> base forum. >> > > I think that bug databases are excellent in this role, indeed it doesn't > matter a lot the kind of infrastructure, bug tracker or forum. If it's > HTML, human-readable and googlable, it's ok. In the past I've found myself > googling around for problems (e.g. with Hibernate) and I got the > solution... into my own instance of Jira, where years before I've posted a > problem+workaround about one of my projects, that in the end was related to > the Hibernate problem. Since the issue was well described, there was the > workaround I originally applied to my code (which proved to work fine even > for my more recent need) and the link to the original Hibernate bug, to > have the details. > >> >> absolutely. People registered for changes to the respective ticket automatically get notified when someone posts info about a workaround. This can be a real life-saver. Separating this into two systems would break that. It works great for many OSS projects, why should it not for Java? JavaFX support sources are fragmented enough, which is especially damaging because the JFX community is still very small. On stackoverflow there are not many experienced JFX people available, on OTN you also only get trivial questions answered because obviously the "interesting" people don't go there and thus people keep posting to openjfx-dev which is absolutely not the place where this should happen but it is currently the only place where you find people with profound knowledge on JFX and thus the best source of support. From neugens at redhat.com Wed Apr 22 10:02:59 2015 From: neugens at redhat.com (Mario Torre) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:02:59 +0200 Subject: Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community? In-Reply-To: <4b3db66c5818543ae4c4536c010cbff3.squirrel@excalibur.xssl.net> References: <1429190184.5234.27.camel@galactica> <85E7E844-9B0C-4438-8516-143155C16884@oracle.com> <55302748.2000206@gmail.com> <1429520133.3997.8.camel@galactica> <4b3db66c5818543ae4c4536c010cbff3.squirrel@excalibur.xssl.net> Message-ID: <1429696979.3667.16.camel@galactica> On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 13:17 +0100, Chris Newland wrote: > On Mon, April 20, 2015 09:55, Mario Torre wrote: > > > Somebody should perhaps consider to join the Adoption group (I think > > this would be the appropriate place) and use this as a way to fill the gap? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Mario > > > > Hi Mario, > > What do you think the role of this "link person" would be? > > I'm not a Member (capital M) of any OpenJDK projects but I'd be happy to > collect bugs and feature requests and promote OpenJFX at hackdays and > within the London Java Community where most of the Adoption group are > active. > > I think that to address the feedback gap once the OpenJFX JIRA goes away > we will also need a technical solution. Personally I would find the > following feature set useful: > > * Forum for discussion > * Open for reading, create account to post > * Tracks JBS and can provide notifications on updates > * Ability to tick webrevs from cr.openjdk.java.net and build them in a CI > to produce overlay builds for easy testing > > Would anyone else find that useful? Hi Chris, Looks like a good list, ultimately it depends on the needs of the OpenJFX community but this seems a great starting point. The link person (or person*s*) should probably take care of the triaging, be the ones who collect the bugs and file them upstream, etc... This is what the downstream OpenJDK bugs maintainer do, and if OpenJFX gets integrated into OpenJDK (which I hope will happen soon!), we can see more and more help from the Linux community in that regard. Mac and Windows communities should offer something similar, a triaging group is the way to go in my opinion. Cheers, Mario