Producing community binaries for OpenJDK
benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 14:51:04 UTC 2017
Why is this so difficult?
Microsoft have a simple click-through arrangement, on Github, where I
certify I have the right to make the contribution and that I agree to
the relevant licensing terms. The first time I make a PR, I am
prompted to perform the clickthrough, and then it goes away.
Why is the situation with OpenJDK any different at all to that?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 29.03.2017 10:59, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>> As long as we're talking about flow of ideas, that might make sense.
>> If the expectation is that patches and build infra code would get
>> into OpenJDK, I think that's very unlikely, as OpenJDK requires an
>> OCA for contributions, while GitHub does not. So over time, the cost
>> of untangling who did what in some random GitHub repo in order to
>> arrive at something that can be contributed tends to overshadow any
>> benefit from such accumulations of code.
>> Sure, that's actually a cycle I want to introduce (some sort of CLA) but
>> appreciate the IP flow here.
> There is no need for any cycles.
> OpenJDK Projects can not take random code from GitHub (or any other place).
> Regardless of the arrangement you arrive at for managing some GitHub repo.
> As soon as you start having more than one contributor, you end up with
> something none of them can go ahead and just contribute on their own. At
> that point the conversation about contributions becomes exponentially more
> complicated, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it's not worth
> spending the time or effort on.
>> Which we might do if this thing has legs, but it has a long way to go to
>> see if it's useful or desirable yet.
> Sure, but in that case you should not really expect to see any of that code
> make its way back into OpenJDK. For example, you most likely won't be able
> to take any such code back into OpenJDK once you do decide to start a new
> Basically, once you have a PoC of some random idea for the JDK developed
> outside OpenJDK, you might have just enough code to prove some idea works,
> but you may have too much code and history for it to be worth putting any
> work into turning it into something that can be contributed back to OpenJDK,
> if you have more than one contributor.
> So one can assume that such externally, 'socially' developed code will be in
> the vast majority of cases undesirable for OpenJDK, regardless of its
> utility. That means the best potential outcome for its authors is to produce
> something useful but undesirable.
> dalibor topic
> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
> practices and products that help protect the environment
More information about the adoption-discuss