[11u] Proposal: Switch jdk11u development to Git/Skara with 11.0.13 cycle

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi all,

collecting the responses in this mail thread so far, I hear that we're about to reach some kind of consensus with regards to a git switch of JDK11u. ��

If nobody objects, I will go ahead now and approach the Skara team to concretely discuss the envisioned switch for the 11.0.13 cycle.

I'll seek to get answers to some open questions:
- How do Merge PRs work?
- Will "git bundle" work for the CPU process?
- What about "git backport" and the "/backport" command in github?
- What's the status of "clean" backports?

This is what I have in my mind currently, please help me to add to the list in case I've forgot or overlooked something important.

If nobody stops me and I get these questions answered in a satisfactorily fashion, I will send around a final announcement about the switch in due course.

Sounds ok? (No response means yes ��)

Best regards
Christoph

PS: I suggest to start another thread for the 8u git discussions on jdk8u-dev...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2021 14:47
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net; jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; Severin Gehwolf
> <sgehwolf at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [11u] Proposal: Switch jdk11u development to Git/Skara with
> 11.0.13 cycle
> 
> [Add: jdk8u-dev]
> 
> On 10/02/2021 16:39, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > This is why we think the project should move to git:
> 
> I have no objection to this, but it's important to reach consensus,
> which ISO defines as
> 
>   General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition
>   to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests
>   and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views
>   of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments
>   Consensus need not imply unanimity.
> 
> It's also important not to consider 11 in isolation: while we do not
> need to move 8 and 11 simultaneously, I very much do not want to see
> them use different workflows for a long period.
> 
> --
> Andrew Haley  (he/him)
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671