Producing community binaries for OpenJDK

Ben Evans benjamin.john.evans at
Fri Mar 10 13:40:41 UTC 2017

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?


On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Mike Burton <mikeb at> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> I really like the sound of this, and moving your repos into 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.ellison at> 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]
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison at> 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
>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at
>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>>> For more options, visit

More information about the adoption-discuss mailing list