Repositories, AdoptOpenJDK and github
johan.vos at gluonhq.com
Wed Feb 28 07:44:20 UTC 2018
That is the difficult point indeed.
But why would a PR to OpenJFX be rejected after it was approved in the
github mirror? I would assume the main reason for this is because the PR
did not what it was supposed to do. In that case, it makes sense to remove
the commits from the github mirror as well.
I think the main thing here is that we need to be very serious about
reviewing and accepting PR's in the github mirror. Accepting a PR in github
does not require the *formal* process of creating webrevs etc, but it
requires discussion about the issue with reviewers of OpenJFX.
We have to minimize the number of times an edge case occurs, in which the
discussion was pro PR first, but after it got merged into "development" new
arguments are brought up against the PR.
I think it would be good to have sort of a post-mortem analysis in case
this happens, in order to prevent it from happening again. But as I said,
if it does happen, it probably has good reasons and in that case we have to
remove it from the development branch as well.
I think the more common case would be that an issue is fixed on the github
mirror, but not yet accepted (nor rejected) in OpenJFX, so there will be
some time lag between the PR acceptance and the integration in OpenJFX. But
this should not be a problem, as long as the following scenario is the main
The github master branch is always synced with OpenJFX, and never gets
modified by other commits.
The github "development" branch is where we accept PR's, that can then be
send upstream. Changes from "master" are regularly merged into
"development". The moment an accepted PR makes it into OpenJFX, it will be
synced into "master" and merged into "development" where the merge happens
silently as there are no conflicts (since development already has this
Does that make sense?
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:51 AM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
> Nir Lisker wrote:
> Johan's thinking was to allow Committers to approve the PR on GitHub --
>> meaning they could be merged on GitHub before an actual Review has
>> happened. Are you proposing to change that?
> What if the PR is rejected at review? We'll end up with conflicts between
> the repos. And supposed someone works on a different fix and uses the
> rejected PR code, how will that be committed?
> Good questions; maybe Johan has some thoughts as to how to mitigate this?
> -- Kevin
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
> kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>> This seems a good start in formalizing the process. It will need a little
>> tweaking in a couple of areas.
>> Regarding JBS access, even though I want to relax the requirement to
>> become an Author (get a JBS account), it will likely end up somewhere
>> between "an intention to contribute" and "two sponsored contributions,
>> already reviewed and committed". Even without this, there will necessarily
>> be a gap in time between "I want to work on a bug" and getting a JBS
>> account. So there is value in encouraging people to clone the GitHub
>> sandbox, "kick the tires", make a PR to get feedback, etc., before they can
>> access JBS directly (or even while waiting for their OCA to be processed,
>> but no PRs in that case). Something to take into account.
>> Regarding review, we will need a bit more discussion on that. I like the
>> idea of the PR being logged in JBS once it is ready to be reviewed. Johan's
>> thinking was to allow Committers to approve the PR on GitHub -- meaning
>> they could be merged on GitHub before an actual Review has happened. Are
>> you proposing to change that? It might have some advantages, but it could
>> also make it harder in other areas. I'd like to hear from Johan on this.
>> This reminds me that we need to continue the discussion on the general
>> "Review" policy, as it is relevant here.
>> As for whether it is merged into GitHub, I don't have a strong opinion on
>> that. As you say it will be pulled into the mirror anyway (along with
>> changes from reviews happening in JBS that don't first go through the
>> sandbox), so maybe it doesn't matter? On the other hand there might be
>> advantages to getting it into the mainline of the sandbox early? Hard to
>> -- Kevin
>> Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Iv'e given the pipeline some thought. I'm purposely ignoring current role
>> names (Author, Contributor...). My suggestions:
>> Potential contributor wants to contribute...
>> 1. Formal process
>> a. If the issue is not in the JBS, they submit it via bugreport.
>> b. They send an email on the mailing list regarding the issue (a plan,
>> question on how to approach etc.)
>> c. If the above effort is "deemed worthy" (whatever that means), and
>> they have signed the OCA, and they then they get access to JBS. If they've
>> given a GitHub account, they get access to GitHub PRs.
>> d. Discussion from the mailing list is copied/linked to the JBS issue.
>> Maybe if it's their issue (step a) then the Reporter field can change to
>> This ensures that:
>> * There's 1 entry point.
>> * GitHub and JBS identities are linked (GitHub identity is verified).
>> * Being able to comment on JBS is easier - instead of requiring 2 commits
>> it requires good intentions(?)
>> * Not every person on the planet has access to JBS.
>> 2. Work process
>> a. They fork the GitHub repo.
>> b. They create a PR with a 2-way link to/from JBS (similar to current
>> webrevs - JBS links).
>> c. Discussion specifically on the patch should happen in the PR thread.
>> General info on the bug (affected versions etc.) still happens in JBS.
>> d. After the patch had been reviewed, it is committed to the Oracle
>> repo. Since GitHub mirrors Oracle I don't think it matters if the patch is
>> merged into GitHub.
>> This ensures that:
>> * It's easier to start working because the GiutHub repo is more
>> convenient than the Oracle repo currently.
>> * PRs and JBS issues are mutually aware.
>> * The submit -> review -> commit process is streamlined.
>> We pay a synchronization price for having 2 repos and 2 bug trackers.
>> This is what I could come up with.
>> - Nir
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
>> kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Johan Vos wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Kevin Rushforth <
>>> kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> A global reference in JBS would indeed be very good to track back the
>>> work in a PR to a real issue. It can also be very useful as there are many
>>> existing issues in JBS that can be referred to in future work.
>>> The only issue I see is that in order to create an issue in JBS, you
>>> need to have "author" status, so not everyone can do this? Given the idea
>>> that developers who want to create a PR also need to sign an OCA, it might
>>> make sense to somehow combine the administration?
>>> I don't think we can combine this, but I hope to be able to relax the
>>> requirements to become an Author a little. The current guidelines are 2
>>> sponsored contributions .
>>> Pending appointment as an Author, it isn't hard to submit a bug via
>>> http://bugreport.java.com/ . If there is a test case, it usually gets
>>> moved to the JDK project within a day or so (and I can move them sooner, if
>>> needed). The bigger bother is that you can't comment in JBS on a bug you
>>> didn't create, but once the bug is there, you can work on it in GutHub
>>> and/or send email to the list. I'll also add any comments from contributors
>>> who are not yet Authors to any bug report.
>>> -- Kevin
>>>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#project-author
>>> - Johan
More information about the openjfx-dev