Are JBS' policies flexible enough to welcome the JavaFX community?

Anthony Vanelverdinghe anthony.vanelverdinghe at
Fri Apr 17 14:58:16 UTC 2015

Hi Ryan

Thanks for explaining. I'd assume the "Test Case" in that section refers 
to contributing an actual test to OpenJDK (as in: ). I 
agree the naming of the last section is rather confusing, but the page 
is actually quite logical: a first section to report bugs, a second to 
suggest enhancements, and a third to contribute yourself.

Please note that I never said is as good as having JIRA 
access. What I said is that I don't see much difference between filling 
out a form in JavaFX' JIRA, or filling out a form at And 
that actually, I feel reporting a bug at is easier. 
Firstly, because there's no need to log in. Secondly, because the form 
at has separate fields, a.o. for "Source code for an 
executable test case", "Expected result", "Actual result", "Workaround", 
etc. On the contrary, the JIRA form is actually quite limited: there's 
only a single "Description" field to include all these details.

What I tried to convey in my previous message, is that I feel allowing 
public access to the JBS isn't necessarily the best option.

I agree that a JIRA account with vote-only access would be nice, as a 
way for developers to show the bug affects them. Even more so since 
voting isn't really used at the moment (the JDK project has only 193 
bugs with votes, 61 of which haven't been resolved yet). However, I also 
understand Oracle's reluctance to changing the JBS policy. And I feel 
the added value of voting is debatable: in most cases, the OpenJDK 
developers will make a correct estimate of how important a bug is and 
set the priority accordingly.

PS: for following bugs you're interested in: what I do, is register the 
RSS feeds in my e-mail client (Thunderbird) & this works really well for me

Kind regards,

On 17/04/2015 0:05, Ryan Jaeb wrote:
> Anthony, I see where I've misinterpreted, so I'll explain.
> The bug report form has a section for attaching a test case and the 
> "Submit a Code Fix or Test Case" section on 
> <> indicates I should follow the contributor 
> guidelines which involves signing the OCA.  I assumed this to mean I 
> would be expected to sign the OCA before bugs I submit with a test 
> case would be considered.  From what you say, this is not the case.
> I disagree that <> is as good as 
> having JIRA access.  I can't see a way to update bugs, I can't vote, I 
> have to resort to bookmarks to follow bugs I'm interested in, etc..  I 
> really value the ability to vote on bugs that affect me, so even a 
> JIRA account with vote only access would be a step in the right 
> direction for me.
> Ryan Jaeb
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Vanelverdinghe 
> <anthony.vanelverdinghe at 
> <mailto:anthony.vanelverdinghe at>> wrote:
>     Hi
>     First of all, the statement that "signing the Oracle Contributor
>     Agreement is going to become a requirement for submitting JavaFX
>     bugs" is clearly not true. Anyone can & will be able to file bug
>     reports at <>, without having to
>     sign the OCA.
>     While I agree <> is in serious
>     need of an update, I honestly think it's easier to submit a bug
>     through <> than through JavaFX'
>     JIRA, simply because I don't have to log in.
>     In my opinion, the big issue with
>     <> is that JBS isn't mentioned anywhere. So
>     for any "casual" Java developer who hasn't heard of OpenJDK yet,
> <> really is a black hole.
>     However, if you know where to look, it's really not that hard to
>     keep track of your reports & the JDK bugs that get created for it
>     (as explained by Dalibor [1]).
>     About the ability to comment: I think it's useful to make a
>     distinction between bugs and features here.
>     As for bugs: once a bug is reproducible or its cause is
>     understood, I think the need for an ability to comment is
>     negligible (while it may be useful to provide workarounds, I feel
>     this only applies to a minority of the bugs & certainly doesn't
>     justify in itself the request for general comment access). And I
>     agree that JavaFX is different in this regard, in that it may be
>     next to impossible to provide a simple reproducible test case. So
>     I agree that there should be a trivial way for the developer and
>     the bug reporter to interact, in order to pin down the problem.
>     However, I think it's primarily up to the Oracle JavaFX developers
>     themselves to solicit for this.
>     As for features: the addition of the dialogs API (issue RT-12643)
>     was referenced as a good example of the advantage of comments [2].
>     However, this was part of JEP 205, and every JEP has an associated
>     mailing list for discussion. So I fully agree the community
>     involvement significantly helped to make the dialogs API better.
>     But I feel the discussions could equally well have taken place on
>     the openjfx-dev mailing list (as has been done for other JEPs on
>     their respective mailing lists already).
>     Another reason why I'm not fond of giving everyone access to JBS,
>     is demonstrated in RT-3458: people "commenting" on their favorite
>     features, requesting that it be implemented ASAP or that JavaFX
>     will otherwise die etc.
>     Bottom line: as I see it, nothing much will change for me: instead
>     of filling out a nice JIRA form, I'll fill out an outdated form on
> <>
>     Kind regards,
>     Anthony Vanelverdinghe
>     [1]
>     [2]
>     On 16/04/2015 21:21, Ryan Jaeb wrote:
>         I was very hesitant to start such a negative discussion as my
>         first post to
>         the openjfx-dev list.  The recommendation to use
>         <> played a
>         large part in making me think it was necessary.  For someone
>         like me,
> <> is a "go away" page.
>         The instructions for contributing, at least to me, give the
>         impression that
>         only participants that intend to become an OpenJDK (code)
>         committer should
>         be asking to become a contributor.  The policy that only gives
>         authors
>         write access to JBS reinforces that interpretation.  I find
>         myself thinking
>         "that's not my role in the community" and I go away.  The
>         contributor
>         instructions I'm referring to are here:
>         In my opinion, any process that starts at
>         <> is going to reduce
>         the number of people contributing JavaFX bug reports.  I
>         understand the
>         need for a well defined process, but, once that process tips
>         to the point
>         of being bureaucratic or cumbersome, voluntary contributors
>         are going to
>         quit volunteering (or never start in the first place) or
>         invent their own
>         process.
>         A good example of what I mean is that it takes "at least two
>         weeks" to
>         process the OCA.  If people have the choice between signing
>         the OCA and
>         waiting at least two weeks to participate, or visiting a
>         mailing list and
>         participating immediately, the official process doesn't
>         matter.  Instead of
>         moderating the bug tracker you'll end up moderating the
>         mailing list (or at
>         least trying to).
>         I also think Richard is being generous with his estimates. 
>         29% retention
>         on 2346 bug reporters means 680 people have to end up with
>         author status in
>         JBS.  The hg churn extension (`hg churn -c`) shows me 134
>         people with
>         commits to the openjfx repo right now.  I think that's a good
>         indicator of
>         the number of contributors that are capable of, and interested in,
>         attaining author status.  It's not unreasonable to think that
>         90%+ of
>         JavaFX bug reporters are like me; they're contributing bug
>         reports, but not
>         code.
>         I've never used the hg churn extension before, so I would
>         appreciate if
>         someone is willing to double check the comitter count I've given.
>         Ryan Jaeb
>         On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Richard Bair
>         <richard.bair at <mailto:richard.bair at>>
>         wrote:
>             If there is a way for people to comment on their issues
>             but they just have
>             to go through <> instead
>             of JBS if they aren’t authors, then
>             it isn’t as big a deal, but I thought (and I could be
>             totally wrong) that
>    <> was basically
>             fire-and-forget for the submitter. In this
>             case we’re alienating nearly 3/4 of our community.
>             Richard

More information about the discuss mailing list