CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

Mon Mar 5 19:44:29 UTC 2018

I have no idea when/why test bugs started to get counted for committer
status.
The last time I checked, number of lines of patch matters the most
irrespective of the significance of the patch [ that was a very strange and
funny way of judging a patch, must be an idea from a non technical person].

If that would be the it;s way too easy to become committer in Javafx
community.
Looks like Javafx community does't have any proper way to judge patch
significance or  the rules can be tailored as per the circumstances.

1)
Two of my DRT Media patches were counted as 0.5  and those were not cosmic
changes.[ May be now you give me a reason for that ? I also did coding,
testing and etc for those patches]

I'm still sure that cosmic changes in Editor file should be awarded as 0.5
instead of 1.
Saying a patch consist of coding, testing and etc, is just play of words.
All those activities are part of code changes and every body does that,
nothing special about it.
I don't see them as separate activities.

2)
For patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1  ,
I can see 5 contributors.
I don't know the exact contribution from Rajath, it could be as small as a
comment change or could be the whole patch itself [ In that case why do we
have 4 other contributors ].
Considering equal efforts by all contributors [ taking the best case ],
Individual contribution = [1/5] --> 0.2.   For Committer status round off
--> 0.
So that patch is 0 for me, unless actual code changes can be shown.

Rest of the things look fine to me.

--Ankit

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:34 AM, ankit srivastav <ank.cpp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Kevin,
>
> I will get back to you on this shortly with substantial claims.
>
>
> --Ankit
>
> On 28 Feb 2018 2:23 a.m., "Kevin Rushforth" <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ankit,
>>
>> In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at the the list
>> of changes, and believe that my earlier nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX
>> Project Committer was justified, if perhaps barely so.
>>
>> While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a particular
>> changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look at 2 to 4 trivial fixes
>> or test-only fixes to "make up the difference" in case only 6 or 7 are
>> deemed "significant". This is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes before we
>> nominate someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over whether one or
>> two are worthy of being counted.
>>
>> Rather than respond to each of your comments individually (although I do
>> have one point below), I will instead list the fixes I consider significant.
>>
>> In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the following 7
>> non-test fixes to be significant, even though several of them were only a
>> few lines of product code changed:
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 (see
>> comment below)
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/9f43fb83e989
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b
>>
>> In all cases there needed to be an analysis, a fix, and testing to ensure
>> that the bug was fixed without introducing a regression. As for your
>> assertion about his part of the collaborative fix to upgrade WebKit to
>> v605.1, JDK-8187483 (changeset dc2963c3f7d1), you make an unsubstantiated
>> claim regarding his contribution. As he did contribute to that fix, I don't
>> see any reason to question how significant it was.
>>
>> In addition to the above 7, and excluding JDK-8185314 (the removal of
>> unused files, which I would agree does not count at all), the other three
>> test fixes are in my opinion enough justify the nomination.
>>
>> I would finally point out that Rajath contributed three additional test
>> fixes during the two week voting period, for a new total of 14 changesets
>> (13 excluding the unused file removal).
>>
>> Please respond to the list as to whether you feel the additional three
>> test fixes, along with my additional explanation, is enough to satisfy your
>> concerns over this nomination, and if not, why not. I would like to put the
>> nomination forward again for a vote once the objections are resolved.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> ankit srivastav wrote:
>>
>> NO,
>>
>> Please go through the table, all the points accumulated are not even more
>> then 7.
>> I have given reasons for my points.
>>
>>
>> *age*
>>
>> *author*
>>
>> *description*
>>
>> Points
>>
>> Reason
>>
>> 8 days ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8196802: 3D unit tests listed as pass  although they are actually skipped
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/1438734a46e3?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.
>>
>> 10 days ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8089454: [HTMLEditor] selection removes CENTER alignment
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/b86ce9469653?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
>> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
>> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
>> product.
>>
>> 13 days ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8196615: Skip 3D unit tests on system without 3D capability
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/4f433399edbd?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.
>>
>> 4 weeks ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8165459: HTMLEditor: clipboard toolbar buttons are disabled unexpectedly
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
>> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
>> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
>> product.
>>
>> 7 weeks ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8088925: Non opaque background cause NumberFormatException
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
>> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
>> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
>> product.
>>
>> 2 months ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8090011: 'tab' key makes control loose focus
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88?revcount=20>
>> jdk-10+36
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
>> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
>> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
>> product.
>>
>> *age*
>>
>> *author*
>>
>> *description*
>>
>> Points
>>
>> Reason
>>
>> 2 months ago
>>
>> mbilla
>>
>> 8187483: Update to 605.1 version of WebKit
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> Unless you directly point what changes you have made in the patch I will
>> count it has 0. Most probably you have made changes for DRT, which even a
>> tester can do. Moving DRT is a non technical task, requires no technical
>> skills.
>>
>> 3 months ago
>>
>> mbilla
>>
>> 8187928: [WebView] Images copied from clipboard not written in source
>> file format
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/9f43fb83e989?revcount=20>
>>
>> 1
>>
>>
>> 4 months ago
>>
>> ghb
>>
>> 8178290: Intermittent test failure in test.com.sun.webkit.network.Co
>> okieTest
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/315c8aa5bc4c?revcount=20>
>> jdk-10+29
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.
>>
>> 4 months ago
>>
>> mbilla
>>
>> 8187726: [WebView] Copy and Paste of Image not resulting in expected
>> behavior
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e?revcount=20>
>> jdk-10+27
>>
>> 1
>>
>>
>> 4 months ago
>>
>> mbilla
>>
>> 8187671: [WebView] Drag and Drop of text or html results in an image
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b?revcount=20>
>>
>> 1
>>
>>
>> 5 months ago
>>
>> ghb
>>
>> 8089124: HTML5: Number input allows non-numeric input
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/73ace584b9ba?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> Only setting value changes. For me this kind of change was not even get
>> considered for Author status.
>>
>> 5 months ago
>>
>> ghb
>>
>> 8185314: Remove unused third-party python scripts from WebKit sources
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/55ad191f5932?revcount=20>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> No actual code change, you have only removed it.It seems it was not even
>> getting called otherwise you must have change some other files which calls
>> function from these files.
>>
>>
>> Adding all the points, total sum = 7.
>> So it's a NO for me.
>> I think you have to solve at least 3 more issues to get to the committer
>> status.
>>
>> *The whole idea behind becoming a committer is to get good solid product
>> knowledge not the issue count.*
>> *Quality matters over quantity.*
>>
>> Which one can only get after solving variety of issues with various
>>  level of difficulty level.
>>
>> Here I can see you have 3 checkins for  file HTMLEditorSkin.java.
>> This file basically  gets I/P from APP written.
>> No/little debugging skill is require to solve the issue in this file.
>>
>> For all the test changes I have awarded 0.5 as no direct impact on
>> product.
>> For DRT, moving DRT from one revision to another is just a side job.
>> Anybody can do that.
>> If I tell a 12th grader then even he can also do that.
>> Also I'm not sure what's the actual contribution so awarded as 0.
>>
>> Removing a file, that's too unused, no code change so 0.
>>
>> *I have awarded proper points to proper code changes.*
>>
>> @Rajath:
>> I know you must be under pressure (No idea from whom) to become
>> committer, but I can see lots of potential in you.
>> You should not not succumb to such pressure.
>> Whole idea [as I have stated above ] to become committer is get sound
>> product understanding, don't stop yourself to get that.
>> *Solve issue to get knowledge not just to show counts to other people.*
>>
>> I can one more checkin from you, but that's too I guess in Test file i.e.
>> 0.5
>> So It seems, you are very close to your destination.
>>
>> Let me now if anyone in the community has any objection.
>>
>> --Ankit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
>> kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
>>>
>>> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11
>>> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
>>>
>>> Votes are due by February 26, 2018.
>>>
>>> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this
>>> nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
>>>
>>> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project
>>> Committer is described in [6].
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -- Kevin
>>>
>>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
>>>
>>> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=2
>>> 0&rev=author%28rkamath%29
>>> [3] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=2
>>> 0&rev=rajath.kamath
>>>
>>> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
>>>
>>> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
>>>
>>> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
>>>
>>>
>>