Commit responsibilities and Lines of Defense
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Tue Feb 22 14:49:36 UTC 2011
Am 22.02.2011 13:14, schrieb Dr Andrew John Hughes:
> On 00:00 Tue 22 Feb , Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> > So I take it the previous democratic choice of Bugzilla may be
>> > ignored?
>> For now, patch submissions should continue to be submitted via bugzilla,
>> and discussed with the appropriate project team.
> I tend to just use the mailing lists at present. Sadly, there doesn't
> seem to be any advantage to using the Bugzilla instance.
I sadly must agree that.
In my experience, there is a better chance for an external to make a patch discussed and potentially
accepted, if it is directly copied to the mailing list.
Additionally I experienced, that yet existing fixes, developed and tested from my side, after some
time became developed again from another person, which didn't know/care about the already existing code.
From my point of view, at least the current http://cr.openjdk.java.net/ webrev storage should be
open for any SCA/OCA subscriber, not only for committers.
1. It seems, the shepherds and mailing-list members are familiar with the webrev and avoid to deal
with the bugzilla diff view. So the patches decay on a dead rail.
2. If it came to some success, I was always asked to create a webrev, attach it as zip, and then
wait for someone to push it to it's own webrev storage account, with all the disadvantage of "who is
the author of the patch to address for discussion". So why do the work twice?
My 2 cc,
More information about the build-dev