Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

[Joe Darcy]

On 11/24/2013 5:24 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 25/11/2013 11:15 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> On 11/24/2013 4:17 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> Probably a separate discussion but one thing that is not clear to many
>>> of us is the relationship between the hsx and jdk8 projects (some
>>> people have different roles in one vs. the other). Are hsx roles
>>> applicable in the JDK 9 project and the proposed structure? I'm just
>>> thinking of someone pushing to hotspot + jdk at the same time and
>>> whether they need to wear more than one shirt.
>>>
>>
>> That is a relevant point to raise. I think it would be a fine
>> simplification if those who have a certain status in the hsx project
>> were initialized to have the same status in the jdk9 project, similar to
>> what is done for the jdk8 -> jdk9 transition.
>
> I don't agree. I think this undermines the whole premise of the 
> qualifications for being an Author/Committer/Reviewer. Just because 
> you have those qualifications for hotspot does not mean you have them 
> for library changes - and vice versa. Maybe it is okay for Committers 
> (Author is a redundant role that should be deprecated) but not for 
> Reviewers.
>
> We should also clarify the approval process for pushing to the 
> different branches of this new forest ie number of Reviewers and where 
> they "reside".

The JDK is a broad code base and expert-level expertise in one domain 
does not imply competence in all other domains. However, I don't think 
it is necessary or helpful to try to codify all such distinctions in 
OpenJDK roles.

-Joe