JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

[Andrew Hughes]

----- Original Message -----
> On 7/24/15 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > to search and link bugs, and so on.  I'm not convinced that the
> > ability of non-Authors to create and edit bug reports is worth doing
> > something so different from the rest of OpenJDK.
> 
> Looking at
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22\%22OpenJDK%20Runtime%20Environment\%22%22%20AND%20text%20~%20%221.7.0%22%20AND%20labels%3Dwebbug%20AND%20createdDate%3E%3D2011-06-30
> -
> I can see that out of 8 issues filed by end users against OpenJDK 7 Updates
> in the last 4 years through bugs.java.com, two resulted in useful changes.
> 
> The rest should have been filed in the corresponding downstream patchset or
> binary distributor's bug tracker, or been a mailing list/forum discussion at
> best.
> 
> That's one useful OpenJDK 7 Updates-specific bug report from someone who is
> not an OpenJDK developer every two years.

Well, yes, I'm well aware of the current status quo. I was talking about a
hypothetical scenario of having the upstream OpenJDK 7 bug reporting process
replace the current IcedTea bug process, which is where the issues currently go.

Also, as Andrew Haley also mentioned, there's a 'black hole' feeling with that
bug process and I've personally had bugs go into it and never appear out
the other side.  That's why we currently point users at the IcedTea bugzilla.

On that basis, I don't think you can pre-judge how an OpenJDK bugzilla would
operate if users were being directed to it and able to input bugs in the more
usual manner of FOSS bug trackers, rather than going through the internal
Oracle triaging process.

> 
> I doubt that the picture looks very different for the 63 issues in the
> OpenJDK 6 JIRA, that has been offering such an ability to non-Authors for a
> few years as well.

Again, we've not been directing anyone at that bug database. Those issues
have pretty much all being filed by me after the fact; we hit an issue
during the security update that is unique to the backport and so it gets
an OJ6 issue. We have five such OJ7 issues waiting with the first backport
of security issues there.

My entire position is founded on having upstream OpenJDK 7 *replace*
IcedTea in the long run. If we instead just want to do the minimum again -
file a few backport bugs as needed, keep everything else in IcedTea - then
yes, it really doesn't matter that much where you file them. For all you need
for that, you could simply stick a table up on the IcedTea wiki.

> 
> End users typically use binaries provided by third parties with their own bug
> tracking facilities, which is where they go to file their issues with such
> binaries.

I know, I triage enough of them.

> 
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> --
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
> <tel:+491737185961>
> Oracle Java Platform Group
> 
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
> 
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
> 
> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher
> 
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Senior 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