CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath
Kevin Rushforth
kevin.rushforth at oracle.com
Tue Mar 6 16:54:24 UTC 2018
Hi Ankit,
If you read my response to your first email, I thought I was clear that
we don't count test bugs the same as product fixes, but neither are they
worth 0. Meaning that a few test fixes can certainly count towards
"making up the difference" as I said.
As for your two other points:
> 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.
I understand what you are saying here, and there is no objective
criteria by which a patch is considered significant...it will always be
a judgment call. The reason I pointed out analysis and testing is to
distinguish it, for example, from a hypothetical patch to add a null
check to avoid an NPE, but without any analysis or testing to make sure
that it isn't just masking a symptom.
I think that all 7 of the ones I listed can be considered significant
(even though a couple might be on the bubble). Still, to satisfy your
point, I will wait for one more product fix before putting forth
Rajath's nomination again.
> For
> patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1
> <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.
I'm sorry, but saying that this changeset doesn't count (for anyone
according to your math) is quite simply a fallacious argument that isn't
backed up by any precedent in the OpenJDK community.
-- Kevin
ankit srivastav wrote:
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/3d5c22069d1f>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
> <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/674513271a88>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1
> <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/9f43fb83e989>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e
> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b
> <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.CookieTest
>> <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
>> <mailto: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
>> <http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath>
>>
>> [2]
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20&rev=author%28rkamath%29
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20&rev=author%28rkamath%29>
>> [3]
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20&rev=rajath.kamath
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20&rev=rajath.kamath>
>>
>> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
>> <http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx>
>>
>> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
>> <http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus>
>>
>> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
>> <http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer>
>>
>>
>
More information about the openjfx-dev
mailing list