Re: Subject: CFV: New JDK 10 Committer: Erik Österlund

[jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com]

> On 22 Jun 2017, at 14:24, Claes Redestad <claes.redestad at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> There are no strict definition of what constitutes significant
> change, leaving it open for interpretation.  There are plenty of
> Committers who've been happily accepted after doing a handful
> of test fixes, but seemingly not everyone is measured with the
> same ruler.

I think we have been fairly consistent in our definition of a significant fix even though I can't say that I have reviewed every single CFV.

A test fix can be as complex as any other fix. I think you are wrong in categorising these as trivial without any deeper reflexion. We have several tests that have a very complex nature and fixing races or weird memory leaks etc in these is just as significant as fixing VM bugs.

> No rule change needed, but a social shift is long overdue.

I'm not sure what you mean by social shift. Do you mean that we should lower the bar for what a significant change is? Or do you mean that we should let our friends slip by because we know that they are good developers?

I agree that the rules could be changed to make it easier to become a Committer. Personally I would like to merge Author and Committer and say that anyone that has proven an interest in contributing to the OpenJDK by submitting a few patches could become what we today call Committer. But the rules are in place as is and we should follow them in the same way as we would if the vote was about someone that we didn't know.

/Jesper

> /Claes
> 
> On 2017-06-22 14:13, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 14:04 +0200, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>>  On 2017-06-22 11:26, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>>>>  Vote: veto
>>>>  
>>> Thanks for sending a clear message that there's no place for
>>> pragmatism in our organization! /s
>>   these are OpenJDK rules, not company rules afaik.
>> 
>> Let's change the rules then.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>   Thomas
>> 
>