OpenJDK Community Census

Joe Darcy joe.darcy at
Tue Sep 13 04:16:45 UTC 2011

mark.reinhold at wrote:
> 2011/9/8 17:18 -0700, ahughes at

>> While I know I've committed a lot to OpenJDK6 (including several big
>> HotSpot merges), I'm not aware of any others on this list having
>> 'pushed at least 32 changegroups into such a Project's Mercurial
>> repositories' (apologies if I'm wrong here).  I know some like
>> Jonathan, Daniel and Martin have actively contributed changesets, but
>> I can't recall it being more than ten.  Obviously, Joe is the
>> former maintainer so he deserves the merit for that instead.
>> The others I struggle to remember being involved at all.
> Going strictly by the 32-changegroup threshold, the list of Reviewers for
> the JDK 6 Project would be just:
>     andrew  Andrew John Hughes
>      darcy  Joe Darcy
>        jjg  Jonathan Gibbons
>      ohair  Kelly O'Hair
> That seemed unnecessarily limiting, especially in light of the fact that
> many contributors into JDK 6 already have the Reviewer role in JDK 7 and
> its successor Projects.  In order to avoid having to vote a bunch of
> people into the Reviewer role for JDK 6 just to get their backporting
> work done I decided to make any JDK 6 Committer who's already a JDK 7
> Reviewer into a Reviewer for JDK 6 as well.
> It's been suggested to me by others that even that's too limiting, and
> that instead the roles for JDK 6 should be initialized exactly as for the
> JDK 7, JDK 7 Updates, and JDK 8 Projects.  I'd appreciate feedback from
> you, Kelly, and Joe as to whether you think that's a reasonable approach.

FWIW, I agree it would be preferable for the JDK 6 roles to match the 
toles in the JDK 7, 7 update, and 8 projects.  Having too many backports 
to OpenJDK 6 generally hasn't been a problem, so a uniform role policy 
would reduce the effort needed to keep OpenJDK 6 up to date.  However, I 
think Kelly should have the final call as the current OpenJDK 6 release 


More information about the discuss mailing list