OpenJFX mirror at BitBucket?
jonathan.giles at oracle.com
Tue Mar 17 22:22:25 UTC 2015
There is no issue with members of the community using BitBucket to
develop their patches. I just don't think it is a wise use of our
limited time to maintain a mirror. This seems something that interested
community members can do if they want. The main issue is as Kevin
mentioned - someone has to submit the patch officially, and that someone
has to have signed an OCA stating that they are owners of the code and
IP being submitted. It would pay to very carefully track who has
contributed code to a certain patch file, as all contributors will need
to have signed an OCA.
On 18/03/2015 11:12 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
> Wouldn't it be possible for the OpenJFX team to officially maintain a mirror at
> BitBucket themselves and use the same criteria for accepting a pull-request as
> for accepting a patch-file? Then you're sure that you can synchronize it with
> the main repositories without any legal or quality issues.
> The contributors could link their forks and pull-requests in JIRA for
> documentation purposes.
> It would really be great if we could move on with this.
> Am Dienstag, 17. März 2015, 15.02:01 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>> Right. If you wanted to revive the unofficial OpenJFX bitbucket mirror
>> for your own experiments, that is certainly something you could do
>> (subject to the GPLv2 + CLASSPATH license terms).
>> For those patches to then be incorporated into the openjfx repos on
>> hg.openjdk.java.net they need to go through the existing openjdk
>> mechanism (which requires a signed OCA) as patches / webrevs, just like
>> any other openjdk project. We cannot take patches directly from a
>> BitBucket repo.
>> -- Kevin
>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>> There was a mirror, but it was unofficial and one-way (OpenJDK ->
>>> BitBucket). I believe (although my memory may be failing me) that it
>>> was operated by Danno, so he might have more to say.
>>> In regards to fork / pull-request vs patch-file, I have no arguments
>>> there. Of course, OpenJFX is part of the OpenJDK, and therefore makes
>>> use of the OpenJDK infrastructure. My main point is that any movement
>>> regarding infrastructure is guided by an over-arching infrastructure
>>> team, in conjunction with the OpenJDK masters. OpenJFX can't work
>>> independent of this.
>>> -- Jonathan
>>> On 18/03/2015 10:50 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>> AFAIK there is/ was a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket.
>>>> I think the URL was https://bitbucket.org/openjfxmirrors, but it's
>>>> not valid
>>>> Is there still a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket?
>>>> A fork/pull-request workflow is state-of-the-art nowadays in software
>>>> development and way better than a patch-file based workflow IMHO.
>>>> It would be great to have such a fork/pull-request workflow also for
More information about the openjfx-dev