Hi Mark,
On 4/02/2013 6:22 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2013/2/2 13:42 +0100, david.hol...@oracle.com:
...
I think the "risks" are a little under-stated. You have changed shared code and
that potentially impacts all platforms (unless you have only added new
functions unused on existing platforms?). There is also the matter of the
"elephant in the room" - the existing proprietary PPC port that Oracle has for
Java SE Embedded. Someone (from Oracle of course) will have to see how the
proposed structure of the new port will impact the existing closed port. It
might be a non-issue, or a major issue - most likely somewhere in between.
Either way, issues with a proprietary port that's downstream of OpenJDK
are for the maintainers of that port to solve, regardless of whether the
maintainers work for Oracle. The existence of a proprietary port cannot
hold back the contribution of an open port.
Ok.
I am also hoping that this will not simply be a copy'n'modify port as we have
seen in the past. The proliferation of platform ifdefs in shared code is truly
horrendous; as is the duplication across the purportedly platform-specific
code. This problem wasn't addressed for the Mac port but in my opinion (and
that is all it is) it needs to be before the community accepts any further
ports.
I think it'd be a fine thing for that code to be refactored and cleaned
up, but I don't see that as a prerequisite for a new port coming in.
The code base will be unmanageable if we keep doing this copy'n'modify
approach to porting, and the more ports we add the more impractical it
becomes to try and retrofit a cleaner porting architecture. The OSX/bsd
port is still causing us "indigestion".
I'd also like to understand the proposed maintenance model going forward. We
(in Oracle) already have to accommodate our closed ports when they are affected
by changes to common code that requires per-platform changes as well. Who will
be providing the changes needed for aix-ppc? And how will that happen?
Every port needs a documented set of maintainers, and it's up to the
maintainers to track changes in shared code. If a port stops being
maintained and rots for a significant period of time then it's likely to
be removed. This is how similar long-lived projects (e.g., GCC) work.
Even if there are designated maintainers there is still a matter of how
things will proceed. If someone is changing shared code who has the
responsibility for making sure every port is accounted for? Do we have
to coordinate things so that no changes are made until all changes are
ready? Or do we allow things to break until the designated maintainers
catch up?
Now that a port that's to be maintained by non-Oracle developers is being
proposed, I will soon propose a formal policy along these lines.
That would be good to see.
Thanks,
David
- Mark
