[gnu.andrew at redhat.com: Re: OpenJDK 8u and Backport Bugs]

[Severin Gehwolf]

On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 09:10 +0000, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Severin,
> 
> > > sorry for being late on this discussion, I just now found the time to
> > > go through the mail thread on 8u-dev in detail. But, hold on, why are
> > > you proposing this change to the process? What issues are you aiming
> > > to solve?
> > 
> > We need a way to distribute backporting work. The intention is to solve
> > a couple of problems with it:
> > 
> >  * Allow for proper reporting. Time a backport bug gets opened until it is
> >    resolved kind of metrics. Using labels for this isn't working as
> > well (less structure).
> >  * Assign specific backport issues to a certain user. This is a
> > more formal
> > 
> ata 
> Don't know whether your mail got cut too early and there is more to
> come... ��

Sorry, yes.

> As for those two points: I can understand them - as specific
> requirements for your workflow within your company, I guess. So to
> solve these, I think it's ok to create backport items and track them.

That's the point. It shouldn't be a solution for one institution only.
It should be a solution where people across different companies can
participate and know who is doing what.

> However, it comes with the issues I described before so correctly
> setting and double checking of the "fixed version" field before
> pushing is required.

Yes. It would entail a bit more work for maintainers. To set the fix
version accordingly (if it's not correct already). For 11u I don't
anticipate this being a huge problem as 11-pool bugs get resolved
properly on push.

> Having that said, I still don't think that opening backport items in
> advance should be the blueprint for contributors to the JDK updates
> projects, as the 8u Wiki currently suggests. If at all, it should be
> optional.

One issue I'd see with making this optional is that the entire proces
falls short figuring out stale issues, knowing current assignees etc.

> And all the maintainer labeling and fix request comments should be
> done in the master bug - this makes life easier for maintainers, e.g.
> having all the relevant discussion in one place, being able to
> directly opening the original commit links, seeing where the item
> already got backported to etc. And it also keeps information
> consistent and in one place.

Agreed. This shouldn't change IMO.

FWIW, Andrew's argument was that it inconveniences a few poeple
(maintainers) by reducing the number of labels needing to get removed
by more (developers). I'm not convinced this argument is sound as there
are few bugs without labels (even if the bug was in jdk-head only).

We are aware that the proposal isn't a perfect solution. Again, open to
suggestions.

Thanks,
Severin