Group Proposal, for discussion: IDE & Tooling support

[August Nagro]

Hi Maurizio,

I think this is a great idea. I personally find things easiest when all
developer documentation/instructions are aggregated in a single directory,
or even single file. The big building.html in the jdk is a good example of
this. Maybe create a doc/development.html?

- August

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:14 PM Maurizio Cimadamore <
maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> On 01/03/2019 18:05, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> > Maurizio,
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > I presume this will subsume the curiously-named "NetBeans Project"
> > Group, that never quite gained any traction.
>
> Yep - that happens to have a bit of a confusing name, as it's a Group
> with the P-word in it; this new group will eventually subsume the other
> (which will be garbage collected at some point).
>
> Maurizio
>
> >
> > -- Jon
> >
> >
> > On 03/01/2019 08:28 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> >> (This is not a call for votes; it is just a call for discussion.)
> >>
> >> At the last OpenJDK Committer Workshop in Brussels, we agreed to set
> >> up some channel in which to discuss issues related to OpenJDK
> >> tooling, and, more specifically IDE support. We already have pretty
> >> comprehensive support for OpenJDK development in both IntelliJ and
> >> Netbeans, but the main, long standing problem has been one of lack of
> >> adequate communication and coordination between these various
> >> efforts, which often led (frustrated) developers to the path of "I'll
> >> write my own support".
> >>
> >> The goal of this group is, first and foremost, to extensively
> >> document the alternatives that are already available at present, as
> >> well as to capture discussions related to tooling support which are
> >> currently scattered among many mailing list (compiler-dev, jtreg-dev,
> >> build-dev). After some internal discussions, it feels like proposing
> >> a group is the right thing to do because: (i) a group automatically
> >> gets a mailing list and a page on openjdk.java.net - which can be
> >> useful for communicating within the group and also for publishing the
> >> much needed documentation; also (ii) a group is not tied to any
> >> specific set of deliverables (unlike, say, an OpenJDK project), which
> >> feels right in this case, as IDE support is likely to be a recurring
> >> activity.
> >>
> >> We want OpenJDK to be a welcoming place for developers, and I feel
> >> that improving IDE/tooling support plays a crucial role in reducing
> >> the activation energy required to start hacking on the OpenJDK codebase.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Maurizio
> >>
> >>
> >
>