OpenWebStart and IcedTea-Web

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi Jiri,

Are you able to post the 1.7 and 1.8 branch locations here that you
mentioned on the call here?

Cheers,
Martijn


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 11:39, Michael Heinrichs <
michael.heinrichs at karakun.com> wrote:

> 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/20190402/2c97ab02/attachment.html>