OpenJFX mirror at BitBucket?

Jonathan Giles jonathan.giles at
Wed Mar 18 00:21:16 UTC 2015

-- Jonathan

On 18 March 2015 13:19:21 GMT+13:00, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula at> wrote:
>But we still need this one-way mirror, from which users can fork,
>right? My assumption is that bitbucket will not keep track of how much
>you diverged from the OpenJDK repo you initially cloned. It will,
>however, tell you how much you diverged from a bitbucket repo that you
>On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Giles
><jonathan.giles at> wrote:
>> BitBucket supports generation of patches from pull requests. My
>> was that community members who wanted to use BitBucket to collaborate
>and /
>> or easily keep their work current with the repo could do so, and when
>> create their pull request, they can have bitbucket generate the patch
>> for submission 'the old fashioned way'.
>> -- Jonathan
>> On 18/03/2015 1:03 p.m., Tomas Mikula wrote:
>>> Legal issues could be resolved by requiring a signed OCA before each
>>> pull request is merged. But anyway, if OpenJDK project does not
>>> pull requests, who is going to create the patches? If patches are
>>> painful for individual developers, they are going to be super
>>> for the person who is supposed to get the accepted PRs back to
>>> OpenJDK.
>>> OTOH, one-way mirrors should be easy enough to maintain by anyone
>>> has access to a server where they can set up a cron task to
>>> periodically pull from OpenJDK repos and push to bitbucket repos.
>>> Whoever forks the mirror and makes changes would still have to
>>> patches directly to OpenJDK.
>>> Tomas
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Giles
>>> <jonathan.giles at> wrote:
>>>> There is no issue with members of the community using BitBucket to
>>>> develop
>>>> their patches. I just don't think it is a wise use of our limited
>time to
>>>> maintain a mirror. This seems something that interested community
>>>> can do if they want. The main issue is as Kevin mentioned - someone
>>>> to
>>>> submit the patch officially, and that someone has to have signed an
>>>> stating that they are owners of the code and IP being submitted. It
>>>> pay to very carefully track who has contributed code to a certain
>>>> file, as all contributors will need to have signed an OCA.
>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>> On 18/03/2015 11:12 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>> Wouldn't it be possible for the OpenJFX team to officially
>maintain a
>>>>> mirror at
>>>>> BitBucket themselves and use the same criteria for accepting a
>>>>> pull-request as
>>>>> for accepting a patch-file? Then you're sure that you can
>synchronize it
>>>>> with
>>>>> the main repositories without any legal or quality issues.
>>>>> The contributors could link their forks and pull-requests in JIRA
>>>>> documentation purposes.
>>>>> It would really be great if we could move on with this.
>>>>> -Florian
>>>>> Am Dienstag, 17. März 2015, 15.02:01 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>>>> Right. If you wanted to revive the unofficial OpenJFX bitbucket
>>>>>> for your own experiments, that is certainly something you could
>>>>>> (subject to the GPLv2 + CLASSPATH license terms).
>>>>>> For those patches to then be incorporated into the openjfx repos
>>>>>> they need to go through the existing openjdk
>>>>>> mechanism (which requires a signed OCA) as patches / webrevs,
>just like
>>>>>> any other openjdk project. We cannot take patches directly from a
>>>>>> BitBucket repo.
>>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>>>>>> There was a mirror, but it was unofficial and one-way (OpenJDK
>>>>>>> BitBucket). I believe (although my memory may be failing me)
>that it
>>>>>>> was operated by Danno, so he might have more to say.
>>>>>>> In regards to fork / pull-request vs patch-file, I have no
>>>>>>> there. Of course, OpenJFX is part of the OpenJDK, and therefore
>>>>>>> use of the OpenJDK infrastructure. My main point is that any
>>>>>>> regarding infrastructure is guided by an over-arching
>>>>>>> team, in conjunction with the OpenJDK masters. OpenJFX can't
>>>>>>> independent of this.
>>>>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>>>> On 18/03/2015 10:50 a.m., Florian Brunner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is/ was a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket.
>>>>>>>> I think the URL was, but
>>>>>>>> not valid
>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>> Is there still a mirror of OpenJFX at BitBucket?
>>>>>>>> A fork/pull-request workflow is state-of-the-art nowadays in
>>>>>>>> development and way better than a patch-file based workflow
>>>>>>>> It would be great to have such a fork/pull-request workflow
>also for
>>>>>>>> OpenJFX!
>>>>>>>> -Florian

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list