OpenWebStart and IcedTea-Web

Tue Apr 2 14:35:05 UTC 2019

http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/release/icedtea-web-1.8/
http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/release/icedtea-web-1.7/
and down to 1.0

If it will be easy and seamless to port it as BRANCHES of  https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/icedtea-web/

Then you can go on. But backports are probable only to 1.8 so do not waste more then necessary
resources. New repo would not help.

Thanx!

On 4/2/19 4:25 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:michael.heinrichs at karakun.com>> wrote
>>     on 29/03/2019 16:37:49:
>>
>>     > From: Michael Heinrichs <michael.heinrichs at karakun.com <mailto:michael.heinrichs at karakun.com>>
>>     > To: Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com <mailto:jvanek at redhat.com>>
>>     > Cc: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com <mailto:Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com>>, Charlie Gracie
>>     > <Charlie_Gracie at ca.ibm.com <mailto:Charlie_Gracie at ca.ibm.com>>, dbhole at redhat.com
>>     <mailto:dbhole at redhat.com>,
>>     > George.Adams at uk.ibm.com <mailto:George.Adams at uk.ibm.com>, Open Webstart
>>     <openwebstart at karakun.com <mailto:openwebstart at karakun.com>>,
>>     > Stephan Huber <stephan.huber at karakun.com <mailto:stephan.huber at karakun.com>>, IcedTea Distro
>>     List
>>     > <distro-pkg-dev at openjdk.java.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 

-- 
Jiri Vanek
Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
Red Hat Czech
jvanek at redhat.com    M: +420775390109