but, as you say, that doesn't give credit for the backporting work. On the other hand, if I'd gone to the other extreme, over 90% of the OpenJDK 6 changesets would be credited to me which would look very odd!
In the dev cycle part of the development job is do all proper testing and verification and this is done by the same developer that writes code. For backports - the verification is being done by the person who does the backport and this is often a different person than the author in the upstream, right? Within Oracle folks have an advantage of running almost every backport by the original author as part of review - helps a lot to gain understanding and see the pitfalls. Unfortunately we don’t have such an opportunity, therefore we rely on all available tests and workloads to be the arbiters whether a given fix is valid or not. You and the entire IcedTea team do get a huge credit for keeping openjdk6 vibrant, secure and robust and the community appreciates that! Thank you, Ivan On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:58, Andrew Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com<mailto:gnu.and...@redhat.com>> wrote: ----- Original Message ----- As this is a backport, there's no reason to allocate an OPENJDK6 bug to it. Will openjdk6 jcheck pass my changes with the 7-digit openjdk bug id? I wasn't aware. It allows either. :) The original information could have been used, perhaps with the additional reviewer. I am fine with any format. If you can point me to a web/wiki page with proper guidelines - I would be happy to follow those as well. Now it looks like Azul wrote this patch, which I don't believe is the case. Unlike the previous change (VS2010 support) here I did not update copyrights on files exactly because I do not see us as true authors for this particular patch. So it was certainly not my intention to make this patch look like it was authored at Azul. However I did want to give the guys credit for doing proper testing of the produced bits as part of the backport effort. I've tended to just retain the original information e.g.: changeset: 893:7aa071f95dac user: prr date: Wed Apr 30 13:10:39 2008 -0700 files: make/sun/font/FILES_c.gmk make/sun/font/Makefile src/share/classes/sun/font/FileFontStrike.java src/share/classes/sun/font/FontManager.java src/share/classes/sun/font/TrueTypeFont.java src/windows/classes/sun/awt/Win32GraphicsEnvironment.java src/windows/native/sun/font/lcdglyph.c test/java/awt/Graphics2D/DrawString/ScaledLCDTextMetrics.java description: 6656651: Windows Look and Feel LCD glyph images have some differences from native applications. Reviewed-by: igor, tdv but, as you say, that doesn't give credit for the backporting work. On the other hand, if I'd gone to the other extreme, over 90% of the OpenJDK 6 changesets would be credited to me which would look very odd! The only guidelines I'm aware of are: http://openjdk.java.net/guide/producingChangeset.html which don't cover this situation. Maybe it's worth raising on the OpenJDK discussion list? Did you backport these changes from scratch? I was a little confused, because the reference to the IcedTea backport patches made me think you might have used those. We will respond to the other mail regardimg Deepak's finding in a separate email. Thanks, Ivan *From:* Andrew Hughes <mailto:gnu.and...@redhat.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 22:30 *To:* Ivan Krylov <mailto:i...@azulsystems.com> *Cc:* jdk6-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk6-dev@openjdk.java.net> <mailto:jdk6-dev@openjdk.java.net> ----- Original Message ----- Andrew, thank you. Just pushed the changes. BTW, icedtea patches 6650759-missing_inference.patch and 6638712-wildcard_types.patch are now redundant. In future, if you're backporting changes, can you please keep the original author and summary information? From: user: mcimadamore 6638712: Inference with wildcard types causes selection of inapplicable method Summary: Added global sanity check in order to make sure that return type inference does not violate bounds constraints Reviewed-by: jjg to: user: ikrylov OPENJDK6-34: OpenJDK6-b31 backport of JDK-6638712 to openjdk6 Summary: Original bug synopsis-Inference of formal type parameter (unused in formal parameters) is not performed Reviewed-by: aph Contributed-by: nikgor <niko...@azulsystems.com<mailto:niko...@azulsystems.com>> As this is a backport, there's no reason to allocate an OPENJDK6 bug to it. The original information could have been used, perhaps with the additional reviewer. Now it looks like Azul wrote this patch, which I don't believe is the case. Also, the following bugs may be closed OPENJDK6-32,33,34,35. I would close those myself but I do not have the required permissions. Done. Thanks, Ivan On 23/06/2014 17:09, Andrew Haley wrote: On 06/23/2014 02:05 PM, Ivan Krylov wrote: The main motivation for this fix was exactly to fix building JBoss EAP certification bundle (for 6.2.0). This fix exists in IcedTea (6650759-missing_inference.patch) but for whatever reason was never promoted to openjdk6. Ah, OK. That's fine, then. Thanks, Andrew. -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com<http://www.redhat.com/>) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07 -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com<http://www.redhat.com/>) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
