Workshop Discussion Proposals from Adoption Group / LJC

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

Was wondering if there was any feedback on these proposals (and the others
on this list).

Cheers,
Martijn


On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 16:47, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm still wrangling schedules to try and get to the workshop but I thought
> I'd share these anyhow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *AdoptOpenJDK Build Farm 1. We would like to discuss some small changes to
> source control practices at OpenJDK to make life easier for builders of
> OpenJDK. In particular we'd like to get agreement on specific release tags
> so OpenJDK builders can match Oracle's OpenJDK quarterly and CPU releases.
> 2. The AdoptOpenJDK build farm infrastructure as code includes build
> scripts, installers, container support, test scripts / suites and JCK
> utilities (for those who are JCK signatories). How can we make this easier
> either technically or process wise for folks so that all vendors / parties
> can benefit from this shared resource? An ideal outcome here is that all
> vendors can save time and effort on build and test of OpenJDK (no one
> competes on build / farms) and end users have openly audited, consistent
> OpenJDK binaries. 3. The AdoptOpenJDK build farm hosts are intended for use
> by all vendors / interested parties (within reason).  How can we make this
> easier either technically or process wise for folks? Some benefits include
> being able to better support Java's WORA promise across more ports (AIX,
> Zos, Arm 32/64, Win32, z390 et al) and to disseminate and test early
> binaries of builds coming out of amber, valhalla etc. 1. The AdoptOpenJDK
> build farm team would like to discuss OpenJDK (LTS) patch maintenance (once
> public updates by Oracle cease for an LTS release). An ideal outcome would
> be to have clear identification of security and stability patches so that
> other OpenJDK vendors can back port for their own implementations.Adoption
> Group 1. The Adoption Group has been going for awhile and has had some
> success, but not the impact it would have liked.  We'd like to discuss the
> outstanding barriers that developers wanting to contribute to OpenJDK face
> today so that we can improve the number and velocity of newcomers to
> OpenJDK. 2. We'd like to discuss the current state of Java 9+ adoption in
> production and what changes OpenJDK may need to make in order to improve
> that in order to reduce the length of time that the industry stays on Java
> 8.OpenJDK Roadmap 1. We'd like to discuss the OpenJDK strategic roadmap,
> for example is Cloud / Container support the top priority for the next 6
> releases?  It would be interesting to discuss how that Roadmap could be
> visualised with JEP's fulfilling the various goals. 1. We'd like to discuss
> the OpenJDK roadmap specifically around:1. Value Types and related work2.
> Safer replacements for functionality in sun.misc.Unsafe 3. GPU support /
> Support for ML specific hardware4. Java Packager5. FFI6. Improvements to
> Jigsaw These topics in particular are 'future' items that various LJC
> developers have stated are of most interest to their businesses. 1. We'd
> like to discuss OpenJDK jdk8u maintenance once public updates by Oracle
> cease. An ideal outcome would be to find maintainer(s) going forwards.*
> Questions, comments etc all welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>