[jdk16u] Are we ignoring jdk16u-fix-* protocol?

[Seán Coffey]

With or without Skara, any contributor to the JDK Updates Project should 
be aware of the basic processes associated with the Project. The process 
for pushing code is documented at 
https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk-updates/approval.html - If it's 
not clear, it can be corrected on that end also.

regards,
Sean.

On 15/02/2021 22:54, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I personally  think that maintainer approvals, checked by "the system" would be a desirable feature for the future.
>
> It doesn't necessarily have to be reading labels from JBS - it could also be entering an approval command in a PR or the like. (Similar to /sponsor for people who aren't committer in a project). This can be discussed in more detail once we get there.
>
> But for the moment I agree to focus on moving the processes to GitHub/Skara and make sure we fix bugs and get things smooth without transforming the process beyond the minimum that's necessary to adopt Skara. So the jdk*u-fix protocol is what should be followed for the time being.
>
> Best regards
> Christoph
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> On
>> Behalf Of Robert Mckenna
>> Sent: Montag, 15. Februar 2021 19:53
>> To: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
>> Cc: Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>; Attila Szegedi
>> <szegedia at gmail.com>; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [jdk16u] Are we ignoring jdk16u-fix-* protocol?
>>
>> Sorry folks, I’m actually ooto atm so I haven’t been paying as much attention
>> as I should be. (I have a cron job that should be warning me about things like
>> this but I hadn’t enabled it since we added branch support to a library we
>> use, I need to get that back up and running.)
>>
>> Certainly at some point deploying a check via skara bot would be helpful. It
>> will need some discussion first however and we certainly don’t want to make
>> changes like that for the first skara-based update.
>>
>> I will contact the fix authors if there are problems with retroactive approval.
>>
>>      -Rob
>>
>>> On 15 Feb 2021, at 17:32, Kevin Rushforth <Kevin.Rushforth at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>> With so many different processes and subtle rules for different projects at
>> different points in time, it seems unwise for Skara to start down the slippery
>> slope of looking at JBS labels (and maybe bug priority and issuetype (bug vs
>> RFE)?) to decide whether it is OK to integrate a particular bug fix to a
>> particular repo at a particular point in time.
>>> FWIW, calling the absence of this level of checking a "dealbreaker" seems
>> like hyperbole when you don't have any such checks today in hg.
>>> Perhaps Rob McKenna can chime in.
>>>
>>> -- Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2021 5:32 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>> Hi Attila,
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/15/21 2:26 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>>>>> None of this is a justification for what happened, just an explanation
>> how I got to screw up the process.
>>>> That is not your fault.
>>>>
>>>> Really, that's a process bug: the bots should not have allowed to integrate
>> without the approval. To me, the existence of such easy opportunity to miss
>> the crucial step looks like a dealbreaker for adopting Skara for 11u and 8u
>> projects.
>>>>> I profoundly apologize about it. I’ll strive to do better. I’m fine with my
>> changes being
>>>>> reverted, adding the request tag, and resubmitting if that’s the
>> reasonable way forward.
>>>>> Alternatively, if it gets approved after the fact, I’ll graciously accept that
>> too while
>>>>> acknowledging that this isn’t the right way to go about it. I just added the
>> 16u request tag to
>>>>> the issue in JBS.
>>>> No problem here. Retroactive approvals happen from time to time. My
>> concern was not with the quality of the backport, but with the fact that 16u
>> maintainers did not acknowledge it, while they should actually be in full
>> control about what is going in.