<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 2025-03-07 15:16, Thomas Stüfe wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAA-vtUyLSYG+KCe+onk8f5yTkTbX2GPCf7nLJFzFpYrhYKEOvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><a class="gmail_plusreply" id="plusReplyChip-0" href="mailto:magnus.ihse.bursie@oracle.com" tabindex="-1" moz-do-not-send="true">@Magnus Ihse Bursie</a> <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Why would we need a JEP? That is a lot of unnecessary red tape.
The BSD port already exists. It is technically not a new port.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If we are to include it in the mainline, which is the goal here,
a JEP is needed. We have only ever added or removed supported
platforms in mainline with a JEP.</p>
<p>/Magnus<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAA-vtUyLSYG+KCe+onk8f5yTkTbX2GPCf7nLJFzFpYrhYKEOvQ@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Magnus Ihse Bursie <<a href="mailto:magnus.ihse.bursie@oracle.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">magnus.ihse.bursie@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
2025-03-06 19:38, Harald Eilertsen wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 05:32:50PM +0100, Magnus Ihse
Bursie wrote:<br>
>> On 2025-02-21 04:03, David Holmes wrote:<br>
>>> I would not like to see it happen that way. If it
is to happen then I<br>
>>> would prefer to see a project established and a
project repo.<br>
>> [...snip...]<br>
>><br>
>> I think that could work as well, but I guess the
difficult part will be to<br>
>> get reviewers from the relevant areas.<br>
> I'm happy to go whichever way the OpenJDK community
thinks is the best<br>
> approach. On advantage I see from our perspective with
the separate<br>
> project repo is that it may be easier to do a bit of
experimentation and<br>
> testing different approaches before a merge into the
mainline.<br>
><br>
> It will still be possible to do a phased approach to
merging the changes<br>
> into the mainline, so that should give any reviewers that
didn't come<br>
> around for the first merges into the project repo a
second chance to<br>
> voice their concerns.<br>
<br>
Formally, there is already a bsd-port project ("Port: BSD
Project" is <br>
the formal name), and according to the Census, Greg Lewis is
the Project <br>
Lead. That means he has the authority to request that a repo
be setup <br>
for this project. I hope you have enough contact with him to
ask him to <br>
send an email to <a href="mailto:ops@openjdk.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ops@openjdk.org</a> to request
such a repo. Since the cogs <br>
of the OpenJDK administration moves slowly, I'd suggest trying
get him <br>
to send such a request already; then the repo might be created
in time <br>
for it to be actually needed.<br>
<br>
Formally, I believe it would be good if he also nominates you
as member <br>
of the bsd-port project. In time, especially if your position
at FreeBSD <br>
is turning out to be long-term, I think it would be good (and
likely <br>
supported by Lewis) to have you moving into the Project Lead
position of <br>
the BSD port project.<br>
<br>
There is also an old mailing list associated with the project;
we might <br>
consider moving this discussion over there. (Otoh, the
porters-dev list <br>
is basically empty so I don't think we're overwhelming
everyone by <br>
keeping the discussion here as well.)<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
>> Also, I don't know if this has been said before, but
this work requires a<br>
>> JEP.<br>
> No, I haven't heard anything about that (I think). I'll
read up on it,<br>
> and get back if I need a hand to hold on to :)<br>
<br>
Have a look at e.g. JEP 388 (<a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/388" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://openjdk.org/jeps/388</a>)
which <br>
introduced the Windows/aarch64 port. That was really about
combining an <br>
existing OS and an existing CPU, but I'd say the amount of
changes <br>
required is similar to the BSD port, so I guess aiming at a
JEP of <br>
similar complexity level is fine.<br>
<br>
/Magnus<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> Take care!<br>
> Harald<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>