Producing community binaries for OpenJDK

Fri Mar 17 13:22:25 UTC 2017

Hi George/All,

I've submitted a PR for the nightly build README.  LMK what you think
in terms of it's tone and message.  If we have a rough consensus then
I can write up similar READMEs for the other repositories.
Cheers,
Martijn

On 17 March 2017 at 09:36, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The five repositories have been created and I've added the team George
> created as admins to all of them.
>
> @George I assume you'll be wanting jdk9 and jdk10 repos as well, let
> me know if you want me to create those.
>
> I guess we'll see what the first code drops look like and then
> re-organise from there.
>
> In the meantime I think Mani and I need to take a look at the
> Cloudbees situation.  If there are any other Cloudbees/Jenkins experts
> then please let me know and I'll put a Hangout together to determine
> if Cloudbees is still viable or what requests we need to make of them.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 16 March 2017 at 19:07, george.adams <george.adams at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> thanks for adding our github ID's to the organization. I have gone ahead and
>> created a team so that our group can easily be CC'd in issues and also makes
>> repo permissions much easier. Could you go ahead and create the repos
>> requested by Tim and as we are unable to transfer the repositories until we
>> have contributor access to your end too
>>
>> Thanks George
>>
>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:20:04 PM UTC, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apologies for coming late to the thread.  Totally happy with the
>>> AdoptOpenJDK github being used as a starting point.  Please not e we
>>> also have an AdoptOpenJDK org at bitbucket if people just wanted to
>>> use hg (although it sounds like not)
>>>
>>> I think we call foo openjdk or adoptopendjk - I'm not too fussed
>>> although I think openjdk clearly states what it is, so:
>>>
>>> openjdk-jdk8u       = openjdk source mirror
>>> openjdk-build        = build scripts
>>> openjdk-nightly     = location of nightly builds
>>> openjdk-releases  = location for releases
>>> openjdk-website   = website source/host
>>>
>>> As it's the AdoptOpenJDK org it should be more than clear enough that
>>> this is a community enthusiasts effort but not an official
>>> openjdk.java.net effort (which may or may not come later).
>>>
>>> I can add various folks to the GitHub org and give them permissions to
>>> add repos.
>>>
>>> Please email me your (or their) github ids and lets get going.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 14:59, Tim Ellison <t.p.e... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Realistically it will take me longer than 24hrs to submit the internal
>>> > paperwork for pushing the build scripts out, but I hope to have that
>>> > done approx. mid-week.  I'm going to push our code to Git under ALv2.
>>> >
>>> > The repo names in the Git AdoptOpenJDK org don't seem to follow any
>>> > naming convention ;-)
>>> > I'd like to end up with:
>>> >   foo-jdk8u    = openjdk source mirror
>>> >   foo-build    = build scripts
>>> >   foo-nightly  = location of nightly builds
>>> >   foo-releases = location for releases
>>> >   foo-website  = website source/host
>>> >
>>> > Suggestions for the 'foo' prefix welcome.  We'd also need write access
>>> > in those too!
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Tim
>>> >
>>> > On 10/03/17 13:40, Ben Evans wrote:
>>> >> I haven't heard anyone expressing any reservations about moving Tim's
>>> >> repos to AdoptOpenJDK - so shall we give it another 24 hours, see if
>>> >> anyone speaks up, and if we don't hear anything, just do it?
>>> >>
>>> >> Rough consensus and running code, and all that?
>>> >>
>>> >> Ben
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton <mi... at mycosystems.co.uk>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> Hi Tim,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into https
>>> > ://github.com/adoptopenjdk would be great. Just checked and I dont have
>>> > write perm on it but other AdoptOpenJDK folk do.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best Regards
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mike Burton
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Tim Ellison <t.p.e... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 09/03/17 17:43, Ben Evans wrote:
>>> >>>>> This sounds good to me - and I think it's the kind of thing that
>>> >>>>> Adopt
>>> >>>>> would very much be interested in.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> That's good to hear.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm
>>> >>>>> not
>>> >>>>> sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'm happy to narrow it down to whatever list(s) are the most
>>> >>>> appropriate
>>> >>>> once there is consensus on a home for this.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing
>>> >>>>> structure?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK
>>> >>>>> do
>>> >>>>> to help you?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Not much at this stage, just a friendly place to talk about such
>>> >>>> stuff,
>>> >>>> and agreement on a natural place to put the work in progress.  Being
>>> >>>> able to move our repos into the AdoptOpenJDK org [1] would be nice.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/adoptopenjdk
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Regards,
>>> >>>> Tim
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Ben
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison <Tim_E... at uk.ibm.com>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around
>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK.
>>> >>>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also
>>> >>>>>> contribute to the
>>> >>>>>> build process.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test
>>> >>>>>> is the
>>> >>>>>> fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project;
>>> >>>>>> though it
>>> >>>>>> looks like that has been quiet for a while?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some
>>> >>>>>> build
>>> >>>>>> scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks.  It
>>> >>>>>> will start
>>> >>>>>> simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC, and
>>> >>>>>> Windows.
>>> >>>>>> Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building that out to
>>> >>>>>> more
>>> >>>>>> meaningful tests.  We like Git, so it's currently housed in a
>>> >>>>>> private Git
>>> >>>>>> repo.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from
>>> >>>>>> OpenJDK and
>>> >>>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open
>>> >>>>>> build system,
>>> >>>>>> so everyone can validate how it was created, and the dependencies
>>> >>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>> patches that it includes, etc.  Of course, the idea is that changes
>>> >>>>>> that are
>>> >>>>>> relevant to OpenJDK source end up back there; but there will always
>>> >>>>>> be build
>>> >>>>>> specific-files, and point-in-time patches required to produce a
>>> >>>>>> working
>>> >>>>>> binary.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd
>>> >>>>>> prefer to
>>> >>>>>> push the code there and continue working under that organization;
>>> >>>>>> but
>>> >>>>>> understand if that project would prefer we set up our own space
>>> >>>>>> elsewhere.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build
>>> >>>>>> system
>>> >>>>>> (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much simpler
>>> >>>>>> than that
>>> >>>>>> -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and then see where
>>> >>>>>> things go
>>> >>>>>> from there.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Thoughts?
>>> >>>>>> Tim
>>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>> >>>>>> number
>>> >>>>>> 741598.
>>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>> >>>>>> PO6 3AU
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> >>>>>> Groups
>>> >>>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group.
>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> >>>>>> send an
>>> >>>>>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> >>>>>> openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com.
>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/OFD8B8A2C3.73C69040-ON802580DE.004DB23A-802580DE.00594BDE%40notes.na.collabserv.com.
>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> > an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> > To post to this group, send an email to openjdk-bin... at googlegroups.com.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/bbecbb8d-7a59-c2f2-a85b-ddb09d4a86fb%40gmail.com.
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> openjdk-binary-gateway at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openjdk-binary-gateway/d547005b-3027-42bd-a90f-bf09d25049b2%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.