Mailing lists for specification of enhanced metadata in Java SE 8
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Wed Jul 25 04:54:20 PDT 2012
On 07/25/2012 01:15 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Thanks for your reply.
> It really helped to clarify how the two-list (-experts & -observers)
> approach operates.
> By observation, it seems that most activities in OpenJDK have used the
> (unified) -discuss model for their mailing lists, which is why, I guess,
> I'm unfamiliar with this alternative.
> In general, I haven't noticed conversations in these forums spinning
> wildly out of control due to rogue input from the ill-informed, but as
> I'm not claiming to be an expert, perhaps my spidey-sense is not attuned
> to it.
> Perhaps experts for other language-related lists such as lambda-dev or
> mlvm-dev might have a view on whether running discussion on a single
> list is unduly painful in this respect ?
lambda-dev and mlvm-dev also use the double model list,
the expert lists are hosted by the JCP (resp. JSR 355 and JSR 292).
> The few exceptions to this one-list way of doing things (in OpenJDK)
> seem to be those mailing lists directly related to specific JSRs.
> There the division between experts and observers is clearer, I suppose:
> experts are those on the Expert Group of the JSR, observers everyone
> (i.e. for JSRs, the mailing list structure just reflects that coming
> from the JSR itself).
> But as you're looking for this activity to be covered by the Java 8
> Umbrella JSR (337), I'm not sure this makes sense here, as I don't think
> you're suggesting the membership on -experts is that of 337's EG.
> (In any case, 337 already has its own mailing lists).
> Also, in a two-list approach, I guess I'd still hope that the experts at
> least follow the traffic in the -observers list. Otherwise, there's not
> much point to discussing things there as there'd be scant chance of any
> good input in -observers getting adopted by the experts.
The main issue is that some experts may not have the right to follow an
OpenJDK list to not be tainted.
But beside that case, from my experience, most of the experts follow
> Having said all that, I very much appreciate the notion of holding the
> design / spec conversations on a separate list to those for its
> implementation in OpenJDK, so thanks for looking to cater for that.
> Please don't interpret what I'm saying as active hostility to what you
> propose. I suppose it's just that I suspect you may not gain that much
> from the overhead it introduces.
> Incidentally, will the list of experts for this work map to some OpenJDK
> artifact, e.g. membership of an OpenJDK Project, or something ?
> Will it be clear how new people might apply / be proposed / join these
> experts ?
> (The OpenJDK Bylaws lay out the mechanics of how this is done for
> OpenJDK artifacts, so it's all clear how this would work if there is
> such a mapping).
More information about the compiler-dev