Future of JavaFX

[Donald Smith]

Check in with the Adopt OpenJDK list, I know there's a few people who 
pull source OpenJDK into Github -- it can't be that difficult. I'm sure 
someone can help.

  - Don

On 01/12/2015 5:16 PM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> The proposed strategy also applies to bitbucket, which does have mercurial
> support ;)
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Markus KARG <markus at headcrashing.eu> wrote:
>
>> Too bad that Github cannot fork mercurial repos. It would be interesting
>> to see the real number of pull requests such a fork would gain. Maybe
>> Dalibor is right and we would end up with zero? ;-)
>>
>> -Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Tomas Mikula [mailto:tomas.mikula at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 23:05
>> To: Markus KARG
>> Cc: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX
>>
>>
>>
>> The review process for external contributions does not even have to be
>> different from the internal review process. There can be a virtual
>> organization on GitHub called "Oracle CLA signatories". After a pull
>> request has been reviewed, all that the OpenJFX committer has to do before
>> merging is to check whether the contributor is a member of this
>> organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Markus KARG <markus at headcrashing.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We should ask ourselfs whether we want more contributions or not. We will
>> not get them until we change something. Most contributors in the Open
>> Source just want to drop a bug report or a feature or two, and multiplied
>> by the number of those guys, this is a lot of stuff. Only few contributors
>> are willing to stay for long time, and only for those it makes sense to
>> have the complex rules. For example, I do not see why we cannot have a
>> dedicated full time "Community Officer" who simply collects the
>> contributions, reviews it, applies the needed checks and rules and all that
>> instead of asking everybody to follow a complex process? That would ensure
>> the quality, but not for the cost of losing contributors.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hervé Girod [mailto:herve.girod at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 20:19
>> To: Markus KARG
>> Cc: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX
>>
>> Things are not different for Apache projects. Google does not accept any
>> external contributions. The Linux kernel development is very tightly
>> controlled. We should stop considering that widespread open source policies
>> are only a problem with JavaFX. These policies are in place for a reason.
>>
>> Hervé
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 20:13, Markus KARG <markus at headcrashing.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder why I was able to jointly assign my copyright with a lot of
>> other
>>> open source projects without having to sign papers, sent them in by fax,
>>> wait for a written agreement, and pray to get a JIRA account... ;-)
>>>
>>> See, I talked to a real lot of former JavaFX contributors in the past
>> weeks
>>> (visited some European JUGs in 2015), and *virtually everybody* told me
>> that
>>> he is really unsatisfied with the fact that he cannot directly file to
>> JIRA
>>> anymore or AT LEAST vote and comment on existing tickets. Is the JavaFX
>> team
>>> clear about how many contributors you lost by that policy? I really
>> wonder
>>> whether you see the reality there outside of Oracle. People stopped
>>> reporting bugs! This is a real problem for JavaFX. You should act. Now.
>>>
>>> -Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On
>> Behalf Of
>>> dalibor topic
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 19:06
>>> To: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX
>>>
>>>> On 01.12.2015 18:35, Markus KARG wrote:
>>>> With respect to TeamFX, the better question is: Are there plans to
>> further
>>>> open the project so third party has an easier channel to contribute
>>> without
>>>> the hazzle of contributor agreements
>>> "Like many other open-source communities, the OpenJDK Community requires
>>> Contributors to jointly assign their copyright on contributed code." as
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ wisely says.
>>>
>>> There is no good reason to change that.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> dalibor topic
>>> --
>>> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
>>> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:%2B494089091214>  <tel:+494089091214
>> <tel:%2B494089091214> > | Mobile: +491737185961 <tel:%2B491737185961>
>>> <tel:+491737185961 <tel:%2B491737185961> >
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
>>> practices and products that help protect the environment
>>>
>>
>>
>>