OpenJFX mirror at BitBucket?

[Tomas Mikula]

But we still need this one-way mirror, from which users can fork,
right? My assumption is that bitbucket will not keep track of how much
you diverged from the OpenJDK repo you initially cloned. It will,
however, tell you how much you diverged from a bitbucket repo that you
forked.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Giles
<jonathan.giles at oracle.com> wrote:
> BitBucket supports generation of patches from pull requests. My suggestion
> was that community members who wanted to use BitBucket to collaborate and /
> or easily keep their work current with the repo could do so, and when they
> create their pull request, they can have bitbucket generate the patch file
> for submission 'the old fashioned way'.
>
> -- Jonathan
>
> On 18/03/2015 1:03 p.m., Tomas Mikula wrote:
>>
>> Legal issues could be resolved by requiring a signed OCA before each
>> pull request is merged. But anyway, if OpenJDK project does not accept
>> pull requests, who is going to create the patches? If patches are
>> painful for individual developers, they are going to be super painful
>> for the person who is supposed to get the accepted PRs back to
>> OpenJDK.
>>
>> OTOH, one-way mirrors should be easy enough to maintain by anyone who
>> has access to a server where they can set up a cron task to
>> periodically pull from OpenJDK repos and push to bitbucket repos.
>> Whoever forks the mirror and makes changes would still have to submit
>> patches directly to OpenJDK.
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Giles
>> <jonathan.giles at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no issue with members of the community using BitBucket to
>>> develop
>>> their patches. I just don't think it is a wise use of our limited time to
>>> maintain a mirror. This seems something that interested community members
>>> can do if they want. The main issue is as Kevin mentioned - someone has
>>> to
>>> submit the patch officially, and that someone has to have signed an OCA
>>> stating that they are owners of the code and IP being submitted. It would
>>> pay to very carefully track who has contributed code to a certain patch
>>> file, as all contributors will need to have signed an OCA.
>>>
>>> -- Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/03/2015 11:12 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be possible for the OpenJFX team to officially maintain a
>>>> mirror at
>>>> BitBucket themselves and use the same criteria for accepting a
>>>> pull-request as
>>>> for accepting a patch-file? Then you're sure that you can synchronize it
>>>> with
>>>> the main repositories without any legal or quality issues.
>>>>
>>>> The contributors could link their forks and pull-requests in JIRA for
>>>> documentation purposes.
>>>>
>>>> It would really be great if we could move on with this.
>>>>
>>>> -Florian
>>>>
>>>> Am Dienstag, 17. März 2015, 15.02:01 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. If you wanted to revive the unofficial OpenJFX bitbucket mirror
>>>>> for your own experiments, that is certainly something you could do
>>>>> (subject to the GPLv2 + CLASSPATH license terms).
>>>>>
>>>>> For those patches to then be incorporated into the openjfx repos on
>>>>> hg.openjdk.java.net they need to go through the existing openjdk
>>>>> mechanism (which requires a signed OCA) as patches / webrevs, just like
>>>>> any other openjdk project. We cannot take patches directly from a
>>>>> BitBucket repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a mirror, but it was unofficial and one-way (OpenJDK ->
>>>>>> BitBucket). I believe (although my memory may be failing me) that it
>>>>>> was operated by Danno, so he might have more to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In regards to fork / pull-request vs patch-file, I have no arguments
>>>>>> there. Of course, OpenJFX is part of the OpenJDK, and therefore makes
>>>>>> use of the OpenJDK infrastructure. My main point is that any movement
>>>>>> regarding infrastructure is guided by an over-arching infrastructure
>>>>>> team, in conjunction with the OpenJDK masters. OpenJFX can't work
>>>>>> independent of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/03/2015 10:50 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AFAIK there is/ was a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the URL was https://bitbucket.org/openjfxmirrors, but it's
>>>>>>> not valid
>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there still a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A fork/pull-request workflow is state-of-the-art nowadays in software
>>>>>>> development and way better than a patch-file based workflow IMHO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be great to have such a fork/pull-request workflow also for
>>>>>>> OpenJFX!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Florian
>>>
>>>
>