JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

[Andrew Hughes]

----- Original Message -----
> * Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com> [2015-07-07 14:51]:
> > I'm working on the assumption so far that we'll use an OPENJDK7
> > instance equivalent to the one we did for OpenJDK 6. As you say,
> > access to the OpenJDK JIRA is limited and it would be difficult
> > for us to e.g. add milestones, additional users, etc.
> 
> There should definitely some change in the OpenJDK JIRA to allow the
> project lead to make the changes they see fit (including adding
> milestones and what not). I am not sure I am convinced by additional
> users, though: if you are committing to OpenJDK 7, you have an OpenJDK
> user id and can access the bug tracker.
> 

Going by OpenJDK 6, it needs to be more than just the project lead...

Your idea about users is nice in theory, but it doesn't seem to work
out in practice.

> > It's also
> > replete with references to proprietary 7 releases, such as u85,
> > which would only cause confusion.
> 
> I wonder if we can use a separate project in the official OpenJDK bug
> tracker. There are existing projects like KONA and DIO there and perhaps
> we can create OPENJDK7, if the official JDK project is not usable.
> 
> If not, then I agree about falling back to a separate project on
> java.net.

I don't really see the difference; either way, we use a different namespace
of OPENJDK7-x IDs, not OpenJDK bug IDs.

> 
> > Most importantly, we need somewhere to host source tarball releases
> > and the java.net instance would provide this too.
> 
> In the short term, agreed. But perhaps, in the long run (I am thinking
> when 8 goes through something like this) it might be better to have a
> project-specific place to publish project-official source releases (if
> any). I can't imagine that other projects would object to having an
> optional place where they can upload releases if they want.
> 

How is this any different to what I proposed?

I guess my main point is that I'd rather we get updates out to users as
soon as possible, rather than risk being stalled waiting for Oracle admins.
If that means having a less-than-ideal setup, but one where we have
control, than so be it.

Of course, if someone from Oracle wants to jump in and tell us all this
stuff is ready to go right now, I'm all for it.

> I see that Oracle also seems to be using java.net for their proprietary
> JDK 9 builds [1] too. I am not sure we want something like that, because
> we will be trying to distribute open source tarballs under licence terms
> matching the rest of the OpenJDK project.

No, we'll not be uploading binaries, if that's what you mean.

> 
> Thanks,
> Omair
> 
> [1] https://jdk9.java.net/
> 
> --
> PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
> Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95  0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222

PGP Key: rsa4096/248BDC07 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07