OpenJFX mirror at BitBucket?

[Jonathan Giles]

Correct.
-- Jonathan

On 18 March 2015 13:19:21 GMT+13:00, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula at gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>