On 02/22/2011 08:41 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely "open",
but we can provide a kind of portal
(
Am 22.02.2011 13:14, schrieb Dr Andrew John Hughes:
On 00:00 Tue 22 Feb , Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> So I take it the previous democratic choice of Bugzilla may be
> ignored?
For now, patch submissions should continue to be submitted via bugzilla,
and discussed with the appropriate pro
On 00:00 Tue 22 Feb , Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>
> >> Kelly just wrote:
> >> >> It's not clear...and slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
> >> >
> >> > I think Andrew was referring to http://bugs.openjdk.java.net.
> > I was. I'm not sure what else the phrase "OpenJDK bug data
On 02/21/2011 08:01 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>> It is clear to us that we cannot make the system entirely "open",
>>> but we can provide a kind of portal
>>> (I hate that word), or view (a b
>> Kelly just wrote:
>> >> It's not clear...and slightly augmented by the openjdk bugzilla.
>> >
>> > I think Andrew was referring to http://bugs.openjdk.java.net.
> I was. I'm not sure what else the phrase "OpenJDK bug database"
> would refer to.
There were several bug systems mentioned
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 18:08 Mon 21 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
snip
So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the
existing
pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
On 18:26 Mon 21 Feb , Brad Wetmore wrote:
>
> >>> Definitely. Making OpenJDK bug DB IDs usable in changesets would be
> >>> a good start (probably involves jcheck...)
> >>
> >> I'll have to punt on that, someone else is working on it, but the
> >> intent is to have a
> >> completely open bug
On 18:08 Mon 21 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
snip
>
> >
> > So this is going to be yet another system? What will happen to the
> > existing
> > pretty much unused OpenJDK bug database?
>
> It's not clear. The old Sun bugtraq syst
Definitely. Making OpenJDK bug DB IDs usable in changesets would be
a good start (probably involves jcheck...)
I'll have to punt on that, someone else is working on it, but the
intent is to have a
completely open bug tracking system that also allows us link it with
the internal Oracle
bug tra
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 18:29 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has bee
On 18:29 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
>
> >> But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
> >>
> >> It has been observed (for a long time now) tha
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
* The bug tracking system
On 02/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
* The bug tracking system needs to be completely open
* We need an open build
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
But there have been some roadblocks for the open source community.
It has been observed (for a long time now) that:
* The Mercurial jcheck extension needs to be open sourced
Funnily
On 14:09 Fri 18 Feb , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Excuse the long email, sometimes it can't be avoided.
>
I much prefer long e-mails, especially ones with good news like this,
to things happening behind closed doors :-)
> I've been asked to try and start up some discussions around how the
> Open
Excuse the long email, sometimes it can't be avoided.
I've been asked to try and start up some discussions around how the
OpenJDK development community
can function better with regards to developer processes and what many
of us call "Lines of Defense"
or how we protect our repositories from c
17 matches
Mail list logo
