CFV: Project Portola

Mikael Vidstedt mikael.vidstedt at
Mon Feb 27 16:52:38 UTC 2017

We’re still working out the details around how this can be built and tested, so about the only thing I know right now is that It’s highly likely that we’ll choose to cross-compile from our usual linux glibc based (x64) machines.


> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at> wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
> thanks for sharing more details. I agree that cleaning the linux/posix
> parts up is desirable and a nice side effect of this project.
> Will Alpine/musl be an Oracle-supported platform, i.e. will it be
> tested by JPRT?
> Regards,
> Volker
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Mikael Vidstedt
> <mikael.vidstedt at> wrote:
>> Volker,
>> Thank you for the excellent comments/questions. My bad on not bringing this up for discussion before sending out the CFV - I must have listened too closely to the violent agreement amongst all the voices in my head.
>> I think we'd have to discover and discuss as part of the project how exactly to model the Alpine/musl port, but if it helps the preliminary investigation I did on linux/x64 before sending this CFV out tells me that the changes seem to mostly revolve around cleaning up various parts of the “linux" (and “posix") JDK sources, effectively just making the code base as a whole more portable. That preliminary work did not uncover anything inherently CPU architecture specific, so until proven otherwise I would assume that the musl supported platforms is the limiting factor.
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mikael
>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 2:05 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at> wrote:
>>> Vote: yes
>>> As you can see from my vote, I'm all for this project, but I have
>>> several comments and questions:
>>> 1. According to the OpenJDK guide lines "It is recommended (and I'd
>>> consider it "good style") that any proposal for a new Project be
>>> discussed publicly before being proposed for a vote. I haven't seen
>>> such a discussion :)
>>> 2. What is the scope of this "port" - will it be considered as a new
>>> OS or will it be handled as a "linux" flavor?
>>> 3. Which architectures will be supported? From a quick look at the
>>> "musl" page I saw that s390 is not supported and aarch64 support is
>>> only experimental.
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Volker
>>> [1]
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mikael Vidstedt
>>> <mikael.vidstedt at> wrote:
>>>> I hereby propose the creation of Project Portola with myself as the
>>>> Lead and the Porters group as the sponsoring group.
>>>> This Project will provide a port of the JDK to the Alpine Linux [1]
>>>> distribution, and in particular the "musl" C library [2].
>>>> About the Lead: Mikael Vidstedt (OpenJDK username: mikael) is a JDK 9
>>>> Committer, and also a Committer in the Panama project where he has
>>>> been working on providing significantly improved support for
>>>> foreign/native data and function access. He is working in the Hotspot
>>>> team at Oracle, and has been working with JVMs for more than 15 years.
>>>> The initial Reviewers and Committers will be:
>>>> Mikael Vidstedt
>>>> David Holmes
>>>> Erik Joelsson
>>>> Kumar Srinivasan
>>>> Alan Bateman
>>>> Vladimir Kozlov
>>>> Sangheon Kim
>>>> Poonam Bajaj
>>>> Jini George
>>>> The project will host at least the following mailing list:
>>>> * portola-dev for development discussions and user feedback
>>>> The initial source of this project will be based on a clone of a JDK
>>>> 10 repository. Changes from the JDK 10 parent will be synced into
>>>> Portola periodically. Similar to Projects Lambda and Valhalla, we will
>>>> follow a "commit first, review later" policy, as code will not flow
>>>> directly from the Portola repositories into the JDK repositories, but
>>>> instead will be done by a "curated merge" where select changes are
>>>> extracted into new changesets for incorporation into JDK repositories
>>>> when they are ready for inclusion.
>>>> Votes are due by March 8, 2017.
>>>> Only current OpenJDK Members [3] are eligible to vote on this motion.
>>>> Votes must be cast in the open on the discuss list. Replying to this
>>>> message is sufficient if your mail program honors the Reply-To header.
>>>> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [4].
>>>> [1]
>>>> [2]
>>>> [3]
>>>> [4]

More information about the discuss mailing list