JGSS Enhancements (contribution by Two Sigma Open Source)

[Weijun Wang]

> On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:09 AM, Nico Williams <Nico.Williams at twosigma.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 08:39:45AM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2019 18:57, Nico Williams wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:35:33PM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>> All patches are posted to http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/twosigma-gss/.
>>>> Peter Burka (cc'ed), of Two Sigma, did a code review using our GitHub
>>>> clone:
>>>> 
>>> Sorry, code reviews and discussions of patches for OpenJDK need to be use the OpenJDK mailing lists.
>> 
>> Yes, this is the rule.
> 
> That's fair.
> 
>> Also, I'm not sure what Peter is reviewing here as the title is not clear to
>> me. Is it about all patches you are contributing? Or is it about the OpenJDK
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> bugs we have already filed (which is only the first few steps of the big
>> contribution)?. You are OK to discuss any change you are preparing to
>> contribute anywhere, but once you decide to contribute a piece of code into
>> OpenJDK, please follow these steps:
> 
> We did decide to make a contribution.  I thought your making a webrev
> for it, and my being approved to be a contributor, kickstarted the
> process.
> 
>> 1. File a bug or RFE (If you cannot do that, ask me).
> 
> How?

Tell me the title and description of the bug/RFE, and I'll create one like https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212217.

> 
>> 2. Post the patch on cr.openjdk.java.net and ask security-dev at o.j.n
>> for code review, or the patch is short, include it in the mail.
> 
> You did the first part.  I did the second.

You're an author now, right? You can post one yourself, webrev is at https://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/webrev.

If see see any problem, you can always send me a patch and I can post a webrev.

Anyway we need to do this one by one.

> 
>> 3. Anyone can reply the mail.
> 
> So Peter, for example, doesn't need to be a contributor?

Anyone can reply, but to push the change, a formal openjdk reviewer is needed.

If Peter rewrite the patch in total then he might need to sign the OCA.

> 
>> You might heard there is a effort [1] going on about switching to
>> another SCM or hosting service, but not now yet.
> 
> Right, GitHub is sure a lot more convenient than webrevs.

Hope so, but I do switch between the udiff, sdiff, frames and new views of webrev a lot. It's not very friendly to comment of course.

--Max

> 
> Nico
> --