OpenWebStart and IcedTea-Web

Mon Apr 1 10:36:58 UTC 2019

Hi Tim,

Our GitHub-IDs are hendrikebbers, netopyr, and AndreasEhret. I have also send them to Martijn via the Slack channel.

We plan to do a kickoff meeting soon, where we want to discuss processes, rules, expectations etc. In case the Doodle did not make it to you and you want to participate, here is the link: https://doodle.com/poll/r3eu72n8pykf3gbm

Who should participate from your side?

Thanks,
Michael

> Am 01.04.2019 um 12:07 schrieb Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com>:
> 
> Send me (and Jiri) a list of people who should have commit access and I can set it up for you. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Tim 
> 
> Michael Heinrichs <michael.heinrichs at karakun.com> wrote on 29/03/2019 16:37:49:
> 
> > From: Michael Heinrichs <michael.heinrichs at karakun.com> 
> > To: Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com> 
> > Cc: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com>, Charlie Gracie 
> > <Charlie_Gracie at ca.ibm.com>, dbhole at redhat.com, 
> > George.Adams at uk.ibm.com, Open Webstart <openwebstart at karakun.com>, 
> > Stephan Huber <stephan.huber at karakun.com>, IcedTea Distro List 
> > <distro-pkg-dev at openjdk.java.net> 
> > Date: 29/03/2019 16:38 
> > Subject: Re: OpenWebStart and IcedTea-Web 
> > 
> > Hi Jiri, 
> > 
> > Good news! We just finished our meeting where we discussed the 
> > outcome of the hackathon. We decided that we want to continue with 
> > IcedTea-Web. 
> > 
> > Next week, we will start to create clean PR for the main repository.
> > But as we already discussed this will not work in the long run, 
> > therefore we need commit-rights rather sooner than later. We will 
> > start with two engineers and later a third one will join. What is 
> > the process to get commit rights? 
> > 
> > Our suggestion is that all changes have to go through a PR and need 
> > at least one approval before they can be merged. What do you think? 
> > Do you have the rights to set this up in GitHub? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Michael 
> > 
> > On 27. Mar 2019, at 17:53, Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > On 3/27/19 5:49 PM, Michael Heinrichs wrote: 
> > Hi Jiri,
> > 
> > This sounds great. I totally agree, PRs and code reviews are a must 
> > nowadays. AFAIK all projects at Karakun are done that way and we 
> > also plan to establish these practices for OpenWebStart.
> > 
> > Do you discuss somewhere how the process is going to be set up? 
> > 
> > Yes. With you,right now :) 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> > 
> > Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> > Am 26.03.2019 um 17:27 schrieb Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com>:
> 
> > On 3/26/19 9:08 AM, Michael Heinrichs wrote:
> > Hi Jiri,
> > 
> > Yes, there is only one code base at this point. But we are currently
> > evaluating if it makes more sense for us to join ITW or create 
> > something new/fork ITW. There are pros and cons for both sides.
> > 
> > I cannot really tell you right now how the native part and the Java 
> > part can be split. Our engineers are doing a two day workshop this 
> > week where they try to find good answers to these questions among 
> > others. Stay tuned! :) 
> > 
> > Lets watch it:) ITW can become downstream of yours at the end... 
> > 
> > Sorry for not being clear. When I wrote modules, I meant Maven 
> > modules. Our plan is to bundle OpenWebStart with a JRE in native 
> > installers, which would make us more flexibel in terms of which Java
> > version we want to use. But the first version will probably run on 
> > Java 8 anyway. 
> > 
> > ok. Multi jdk support is both advantage and pitfall of ITW.
> 
> > 
> > What is the policy of the ITW repo? Are you the only committer and 
> > people created pull requests? I guess this process will not work 
> > anymore unless you are willing to do nothing more but pull request 
> > reviews during the next couple of months. ;) How shall we setup the process? 
> > 
> > There was about  20 commiters/reviwers on classapth servers I knew 
> > about, and aprox 100 I was not
> > aware about. Unluckily all are inactive now. Anyway, we moved to new
> > repo, so those are no longer
> > valid, nor the workflow, nor the policies.
> > 
> > I definitely can not stay single commiter/reviwer. That would kill 
> > both me and ITW.  I'm definitely
> > going to eyball all commits in  next few weeks, but I may be of for 
> > day or so, and I do not wont it
> > to stay and wait. I can always speak my mind after merge, and you do
> > not need to listen. Nor I can
> > catch all, nor can I be the single stop show voice.
> > 
> > I guess all your fultimers on ITW should get commit review 
> > permissions right now, but all changes
> > should go through PR, so other interested vocies can comment. 
> > Geerally untill there is anti voice,
> > the PR should (SHOULD!) not be merged.
> > 
> > We are currently setting the process up. Lets it be square usable. 
> > My only note to it really is,
> > that every change should go via PR, and your full timers shoudl get 
> > push/merge access.
> > 
> > TYVM!
> > J.
> > 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jiri Vanek
> > Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
> > Red Hat Czech
> > jvanek at redhat.com    M: +420775390109
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20190401/471de732/attachment-0001.html>