Andrew John Hughes
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Tue Jul 7 11:35:48 UTC 2009
2009/7/7 Christopher Hegarty -Sun Microsystems Ireland
<Christopher.Hegarty at sun.com>:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> Forgive the naivety, but what is a 'CCC request'? Is this process of
>> requesting and approving specification changes public? I'm sure I'm
>> not alone among those contributing to the JDK only since its inception
>> as OpenJDK and thus unaware of such procedures, so some explanation
>> would be helpful.
> The CCC process is referred to in the developers guide, under 'Change
> Planning and Guidelines' . It doesn't explain what the CCC stands for or
> how it works, but I found a mail that Iris sent some time ago which explains
> a little about it . Relevant section:
> "I'm not quite sure what "CCC" stands for (and I'm on it :) ). In the
> back of my mind, I think it stands for "Committee for Concerned
> Citizens", but that could have been a punchline for a joke.
> Nevertheless, the CCC is ann important part of our current process.
> It is responsible for auditing anything that would change spec or
> externally visible behaviour in the JDK, such as adding a new API,
> tool option, or system property.
> The CCC is one of the "Process Tools" for interface review and change
> approval that Mark references in this blog:
> Upcoming OpenJDK infrastructure projects
> I'll provide a definition of CCC and reference it in the Guide as
> appropriate. We'll need to keep in mind that the this review body's
> function (and possibly name) will likely change as as externalize its
> function. For this reason, we've been reluctant to provide much
> documentation about it."
>  http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html
Thanks for reminding me about this post. This stuff does seem vaguely
familiar now... :)
It is, however, rather disappointing that we've so far failed to
achieve most of the things Mark highlights in this blog. I've CCed
Mark on this email to see if he can shed any light on current
progress. Without wanting to enter into too much speculation, I would
guess conditions at Sun have not been ideal since this blog was
published, and this has diminished the ability to complete these
I'm assuming that the quarters referred to are from the start of the
year, as matches the appearance of the Mercurial forests, rather than
this being the financial year system.
* Code-review publication: Scheduled for Q4/2007, appeared in Q1/2009.
* Core community database: Scheduled for Q4/2007, as yet no public
interface although it presumably exists behind the scenes (we have SSH
keys, etc. but the only way of modifying this information that I know
of is by pestering Mark Reinhold).
* Public Mercurial forests: Scheduled for Q4/2007, appeared Q4/2007,
becoming more active as time goes on.
* Mercurial forest management: Scheduled for Q1/2008, although
external contributors have push rights, these are global as far as I
can tell, and there is no ability for us to create subprojects, etc.
* OpenGrok: Scheduled for Q1/2008, nothing as yet.
* Improved content publishing: Scheduled for Q2/2008, not sure what
this involves as I've never seen the internal variant, but nothing
visible as yet.
* Process tools: Scheduled for Q2/2008, nothing so far.
* Bug database: Scheduled for 2008, appeared Q1/2009.
* Distributed build system: Scheduled for 2008, nothing so far.
Please let us know if there's anything we can do to help with these.
I assume there has been some internal progress, but there is nothing
public on most of these so far. A few are just niceties (like
OpenGrok, distributed builds), but things like the process tools are
presumably quite vital in the development of JDK7.
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
More information about the core-libs-dev