OpenJDK Bug Tracking Project

[Steve Poole]

On 16/03/11 22:14, Mike Swingler wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 16 March 2011 19:14, Phil Race<philip.race at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2011 11:45 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 16 March 2011 16:11, Phil Race<philip.race at oracle.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2011 8:57 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have omitted the licensing of the bug system.  It should
>>>>>> be Free Software, in line with the rest of OpenJDK.
>>>>> This is over-ridden by a need to meet the real requirements. The
>>>>> licensing
>>>>> is not
>>>>> a real requirement. Its a preference. If some non-free software fits the
>>>>> needs better
>>>>> then so be it. And If Oracle is willing to foot the bill that's fine by
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>> -phil.
>>>> Nobody said anything about cost.  I'm talking about Free as in Freedom.
>>>>
>>>> For me, this is the overridding factor.  If we're just going to
>>>> replace one proprietary bug database with another, we may as well just
>>>> stick with the one we already have.
>>> I completely understand what you mean.
>> Funny, it doesn't sound like it.
> We may understand your concerns, and simply disagree.
>
> The difference is between Free Software being it's own first order good, or the actual creation of the OpenJDK product itself.
>
>>> Its just that its not the overriding
>>> factor.
>>> I don't see any necessary connection between being an open source project
>>> and
>>> using an open source tool chain.
>> Clearly this seems to have been true of most people at Sun, leading to
>> OpenJDK being released in the state it was and IcedTea having to be
>> created to make it buildable.
>>
>>> And it doesn't matter whether the software is free or not. The
>>> administration of
>>> it will doubtless not be "free" in any sense.
>>> The one that's used now isn't a problem because its not open source. Its a
>>> problem
>>> because its not accessible.
>> It matters to me and other people too no doubt.  It's not just about
>> the source code being available.  Having transparency and working in
>> the open has an effect on development which leads to a different
>> product than one which would be developed in a proprietary setting.
>> We may not need to be able to build our own copy of the database but
>> we do need to be able to trust the software that's running on the
>> server and that's impossible with a proprietary solution.  You can
>> apply all these comments to jcheck too, as I've mentioned on many an
>> occasion.
> > From an end-users perspective, there are proprietary bug systems which may more useable than their open-source counterparts. Trust in the software to perform it's functions may be possible given access to it's source, but for most practical purposes, is not actually verifiable except by domain experts.
>
> I agree that the license of the software is a secondary concern compared to the ability of the software to perform it's required functions.
>
>> You already have a Bugzilla instance set up.  Why not just use it?
> I am curious about this as well. Does it simply not scale when confronted with the sheer volume of bugs in the existing Sun database?
Thats a good point and question -  how many existing bugs are we talking 
about  and what's the average arrival rate?

> Regards,
> Mike Swingler
> Java Engineering
> Apple Inc.
>