[Proposal] Maintainer Approvals and SKARA
gnu.andrew at redhat.com
Wed Mar 23 20:13:59 UTC 2022
We have been discussing how to implement and/or adapt the current
approval process (jdk<x>-fix-request, jdk<x>-fix-yes, etc.) to SKARA
on this bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-1199
At present, we have been continuing to approve bugs for update
releases as we did in Mercurial; when the change is reviewed, the
proposer should flag it as jdk<>-fix-request (or
jdk<>-critical-request for a rampdown fix) and then an approver
responds with the *-yes or *-no response on the bug.
SKARA has introduced a new worry for me into this process, due to the
way the PR bot directs the user through the change process. This in
itself is a good thing. However, while it is currently not aware of
the approval process, it can encourage someone to integrate a change
which has not yet been approved. Hence why I feel some solution to
SKARA-1199 is quite critical (especially with the potential move of
the master 8u repository to SKARA) and it surprises me that other
update projects have not pushed harder for this, prior to 8u adopting
In thinking through how to implement this in SKARA, it occurred to me
that trying to continue with what we have now may not be the best
solution. The issues I see are:
1. Having the approval process in the bug database separate from the
proposed commit on GitHub creates a disconnect between the two.
We had this before, with the separation between mailing list activity
and the bug database, but now that pretty much everything else happens
in GitHub/SKARA, it feels odd to have to go back and forth between
JBS and GitHub to approve a change.
2. Access to add a label in JBS requires someone to have JDK authorship
status, so, for non-authors, someone else has to do this on their
behalf (as with sponsoring)
3. On the flip-side to #2, any JDK author can add jdk<x>-fix-yes or
jdk<x>-critical-yes to a bug, as I believe has happened in the past.
4. From a technical perspective, this means JBS has to be regularly
probed to pick up new labels. This also affects CSRs, which already
have issues in this area, and the demand for backports would be
5. When we've dealt with backports which affect multiple bugs,
the informal process we've had in the past means we've been able
to choose whether to require that all bugs are flagged or not.
Having a formal version of the process we have now in SKARA would
mean having to label every referenced bug in something like .
My proposal would be that we shift approvals to SKARA in a similar
way to which sponsorship is currently handled:
1. When a PR for a backport project reaches the point at which
it would currently be integrated (after either /integrate for
a committer or /sponsor for a non-committer), it instead
gets an 'approval' label.
2. For the PR to move forward, an 'integrator' (someone capable
of merges & tags)  would need to perform '/approval [yes|no]' to
cause the change to either be integrated or rejected.
I believe this would simplify the implementation of this feature
a lot and also integrate it better into SKARA.
The bot could still label bugs with the jdk<x>-fix-request when
it adds the 'approval' label to the PR and with jdk<x>-fix-yes
and jdk<x>-fix-no when the /approval command is used.
The use of jdk<x>-fix-request or jdk<x>-critical-request can
also be pre-determined by the bot, based on the repository
the PR is against (jdk<x>u-dev for the former, jdk<x>u for the
latter). This is something that would go in the server-side
I'm honestly struggling to see why we'd hold onto the existing
process, but I also realise that adaptation can be hard, particularly
for other update projects where SKARA has been in use longer.
Pronouns: he / him or they / them
Senior Free Java Software Engineer
OpenJDK Package Owner
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
More information about the jdk-updates-dev