Current Status of OpenJDK 8 for mips64el

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On 2018-08-21 19:33, Ao Qi wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Thanks for you reply. Please see inline:
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> 于2018年8月21日周二 下午5:15写道：
>> The current mips-port project is more or less abandoned. There is just
>> Dalibor as lead, and no other registrered contributors. [1] No serious
>> activitity has happend on the mailing lists for years, and there is not
>> even a hg repository associated with the project.
>>
>> It does seem like a good idea to revive it for bringing in your mips
>> port into a more current version of OpenJDK.
>>
>> I would suggest that, if Dalibor is happy with it, he should pass on the
>> role as mips-port lead to you, since you are actively pursuing the mips
>> port at this point.
>>
> If possible, I am willing to take this responsibility.
That sounds good!

Formally, Dalibor would need to resign as Project Lead. Then, a new 
Project Lead can be nominated and voted upon by the Group Leads of the 
sponsoring groups. In this case, the Porters Group is the sole sponsor, 
so the Project Lead can elect a new Project Lead in a single stroke. :-) 
And, conveniently, the Group Lead of the Porters Group is also Dalibor, 
so he can do all of this in a single email. ;-)

>> In any case, the first thing to to is for the mips-port lead to request
>> a new repository for the up to date port. The project lead needs to send
>> a mail to ops at openjdk.java.net and specify the name of the repository.
>> My suggestion would be "mips-port/jdk" if the intention is to track the
>> current jdk/jdk master, or "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...) if the
>> intention is to track a specific, released, version.
>>
> I support this suggestion. We already have a jdk8 MIPS64 port and we
> will maintain it for a long time, so I think mips-port/jdk8 or
> mips-port/jdk8u may be needed.
If you intend to track jdk8u (which I recommend), then you should name 
it after that.

> I do have plans to upgrade our port to
> the latest jdk/jdk master. Actually, I have done some research and
> experiment in the past few days. However, I can't guarantee how long
> it will take to get the job done.
Then it's just as well to request a mips-port/jdk repo while you're at 
it, I think.

>
> I have one question about the name. Our port is for MIPS64, and I know
> some companies are doing MIPS32 port. I am not sure whether they will
> upstream their work. If yes, it is not known yet that whether the code
> is merged into "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...)  or into different
> repositories. So which name (mips-port or mips64-port) are more
> suitable for the current situation?

Unless there's a requirement that repo names must match the project 
names, it sounds like mips64-port is more logical. Such matching seem to 
be the general rule, but otoh I find repos that does not fit project 
names either, so maybe it's a flexible rule.

Even if no mips32 port ever materializes, I think this is a good choice 
of name. If your port is only supporting mips64 and you have no 
intention of doing anything different, then it's better to be explicit. 
That way everyone's expectations on the port is at the right level.

/Magnus

>> Once a repo is in place, I can give further guidance in how to proceed.
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Ao Qi
>
>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#mips-port
>>
>> On 2018-07-26 18:01, Ao Qi wrote:
>>> Hi Dalibor,
>>>
>>> Ping?
>>>
>>> Could you suggest me what should I do for bringing the port into the
>>> MIPS Porting Project?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ao Qi
>>> Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> 于2018年6月19日周二 下午4:28写道：
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's too late for a new a port come into JDK 8 Updates Project
>>>>> at this time, with less then a year to go under the current maintainers,
>>>>> considering how long it would take to bring the code into OpenJDK, run
>>>>> through the JEP process, code reviews, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's probably too late for a fresh port to make it into JDK 11, as well,
>>>>> with less than a month to go until rampdown starts.
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your reply and suggestion. I understand that
>>>> it is too late for a new port to be into the main line of jdk8u and
>>>> jdk11.
>>>>
>>>>> So my suggestion would be to start by bringing your port into the MIPS
>>>>> Porting Project, and then, once it's brought forward to JDK 11 and there is
>>>>> a build passing JCK for Java SE 11, to go through the JEP process for
>>>>> inclusion in a later version of the JDK.
>>>>>
>>>> I think your suggestion is very reasonable, helpful and acceptable. We
>>>> are willing to adopt your suggestion. However, I have one question
>>>> about your suggestion. Could you explain more about bringing our port
>>>> into the MIPS Porting Project? I'm not quite sure what it specifically
>>>> means. Is that we can put our code into OpenJDK repository (not the
>>>> main line) like aarh64 jdk8u[1] and the further development should
>>>> happened according to community requirements, such as [2][3]？
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port
>>>> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws
>>>> [3] http://openjdk.java.net/contribute
>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> dalibor topic
>>>>>