[jvanek at redhat.com: visual vm 1.3.1]

[akurtakov]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<ahughes at redhat.com> wrote:
> [Forwarding to distro-pkg-dev as public items such as releases should be discussed there]
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:08:49 +0100
> From: Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com>
> Subject: visual vm 1.3.1
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100907 Fedora/3.1.3-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.3
>
> Hi!
> I had prepared visualvm harness 1.1. and uploaded to download/sources
> as 1.0 was used to be.
> I have also updated our package to visualvm to 1.3.1, harness 1.1,
> profiler 6.9-1.
> It is awaiting in testrepo, and will be here, untill way "how with"
> visualvm  will be set.
>
> Regards J.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> I don't believe we have even properly discussed a 1.1 release of the
> VisualVM harness yet, let alone made such a release.  Such releases
> need to be discussed on the public list (distro-pkg-dev) so that everyone
> has a chance to give their input.
>
> I have asked, both by e-mail and on IRC, for you to post any patches
> you want for such a release but have only seen one so far
> (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2011-January/011643.html). The
> discussion on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205
> suggests that more changes are needed before we make a new release and
> a quick look at the spec file in Fedora confirmed this to me.
>
> I tried to make some of the necessary changes but found that my work
> was being ignored by the Fedora build as it was downloading a 1.1
> tarball.  This seems to have been published to the IcedTea server
> without any discussion.  I'm afraid I've had to remove this in order
> to proceed with work on VisualVM.  Apologies to anyone who may have
> been depending on it, but it doesn't seem to have been announced
> anywhere.
>
> We provide the VisualVM harness as an upstream project so that all
> distributions can benefit.  Thus, where possible, we expect changes
> to be pushed to the harness rather than being kept locally in the
> distribution packages so that more people can benefit.  At present,
> the Fedora spec file for VisualVM seems to have several modifications
> (patches and the movement of installed files) which can be upstreamed
> for the benefit of all, and I would like to see these in the repository
> before any further releases are made.

I just want to note that Fedora as a project requires each packager to
propose his patches upstream. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream. But we
can not guarantee that every packager is doing that nor we can track
every patch's path in different tracking systems, mails and so on.
This mail is sent to simply disambiguate what does Fedora mean in this
mail - upstream first is one of our biggest virtues and I'm not happy
seeing it questioned in any way by a single package maintainer
actions.

Regards,
Alexander Kurtakov

>
> Additionally, when submitting patches for review, please attach them
> to an e-mail describing fully the motivation for it with a ChangeLog
> entry.  It is very hard to review a patch if we don't know why it is
> being submitted in the first place or what it does.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Andrew :)
>
> Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>
> Support Free Java!
> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> http://icedtea.classpath.org
> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
> Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>