Repositories, AdoptOpenJDK and github

Kevin Rushforth kevin.rushforth at
Wed Feb 28 15:46:25 UTC 2018

Hi Johan,

Your points all make sense to me. In that case, we need to make the 
policy for approving PRs such that it meets the code review criteria 
(which is still something we need to formalize) -- meaning that a 
"Reviewer"  (or more in the case of larger changes) needs to review it 
and not just any "Committer". If we do that, then I there should be no 
cause for rejected reviews, since it will have already been "Reviewed".

-- Kevin

Johan Vos wrote:
> 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 flow:
> 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 code).
> Does that make sense?
> - Johan
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:51 AM Kevin Rushforth 
> <kevin.rushforth at <mailto:kevin.rushforth at>> wrote:
>     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 <mailto:kevin.rushforth at>>
>>     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
>>         say.
>>         -- 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 them.
>>>         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
>>>         <mailto:kevin.rushforth at>> wrote:
>>>             Johan Vos wrote:
>>>>             On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Kevin Rushforth
>>>>             <kevin.rushforth at
>>>>             <mailto:kevin.rushforth at>> 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 [1].
>>>             Pending appointment as an Author, it isn't hard to
>>>             submit a bug via . 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
>>>             [1]
>>>>             - Johan 

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list