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

[Roman Kennke]

As far as I understand it, the rules have been designed to give some
confidence that the author is expected to take some responsibilty to the
stuff he's doing plus provide some basic confidence that the author is
competent to handle OpenJDK dev work.

I don't really have an overview of Erik's track record. I do work with
him on GC interface stuff though, and I am currently looking at some of
his work that is not in OpenJDK yet, which is a pretty large change, and
all I can say is that this gives me the confidences I have mentioned above.

I'm all for less bureaucrazy and more pragmatism and am hereby voting: yes

But I don't see it as a bad idea to wait until his above mentioned big
GC interface stuff is in JDK10 if that gives other people involved more
confidence.


Cheers, Roman

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