New candidate JEP: 369: Migrate to GitHub

[Mario Torre]

Hi Kevin,

I admit I had to read the email a few times and my first reaction was how
can people say that this process is simpler than the current mercurial
workflow.

Anyway, I guess I have to try it out before I can be properly critic.

Cheers,
Mario

On Sat 16. Nov 2019 at 00:34, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
wrote:

> No, that isn't quite right. A contributor who has the role of Committer
> is the one who initiates the commit, either via the GitHub UI, by
> entering the "/integrate" command, or via the Skara tooling, by running
> "git pr integrate".
>
> If a project is set up to require reviewers, then there must be at least
> one approved review by someone with a Reviewer role in the project must
> approve it, but it is the Committer who integrates it after the review
> is done, and after all other requirements are satisfied (e.g., many
> groups require a second reviewer, API changes require a CSR, etc).
>
> A contributor who is not a Committer, needs to have a sponsoring
> Committer "/sponsor" their change after they issue the "/integrate"
> command to indicate that they are ready for it to be pushed.
>
> In both cases, it is the Committer who initiates the push.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 11/15/2019 3:22 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this.
> >
> > On question still remains however, with the move to a pull request model
> we
> > effectively give up the role of a committer (even if we maintain it to
> > respect the bylaw it would be an empty role), this is because the
> reviewer
> > or maintainer that approves the change request of effectively committing
> > and the original author of the patch may have any of the roles from a
> > simple contributor to a reviewer.
> >
> > Is that true or how else would we be dealing with contributions?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mario
> >
> > On Fri 15. Nov 2019 at 23:39, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/15/2019 2:22 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> >>
> >> One can argue that git is onerous the same way, the thing is that you
> are
> >> not used to mercurial so it appears difficult for you. For this reason I
> >> may say I won’t contribute a line of code if we switch to git but the
> >> reality is that if I want or need for some reason I find my way. After
> all
> >> we started with Classpath, that was cvs...
> >>
> >> All that said, this JEP is only incidentally about git, it’s about
> GitHub,
> >> and we shouldn’t confuse the two things.
> >>
> >> At the end of the day everyone will still have to go through the
> governance
> >> model so it can’t happen that we accept random contributions anymore
> than
> >> now, unless this JEP is also about changing the bylaw and giving away
> with
> >> the current role system.
> >>
> >> The governance model implications are explicitly mentioned in the JEP in
> >> the goals section:
> >>
> >>
> >>     - Do not change the OpenJDK Bylaws <https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws
> >.
> >>     - Do not change the OpenJDK Census <https://openjdk.java.net/census
> >.
> >>
> >> I attended an OpenJDK governing board meeting this October to discuss
> >> Skara:
> >>
> >>         https://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/minutes/2019-10-10
> >>
> >> The slides I presented explicitly quote from the current bylaws:
> >>
> >> Section 6 of the OpenJDK Bylaws: "A Project may have web content, one or
> >> more code repositories, and one or more mailing lists. Projects are
> >> expected to operate in an open, transparent, and meritocratic manner.
> Their
> >> alignment with these principles will be monitored by the Governing
> Board."
> >>
> >> Appendix A of the OpenJDK Bylaws: "The data stored in any infrastructure
> >> provided for use by Community members must be made available by some
> means
> >> that enables, without undue effort, the construction of a complete
> >> functional clone of that infrastructure and its data as seen by the
> entire
> >> Community."
> >>
> >> No one present at the meeting disagreed with the assessment that the
> >> bylaws would *not* need to be updated to use a hosting provider for the
> >> JDK's sources.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Joe
> >>
>
> --
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/