Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 27/07/15 18:26, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Yes, I know the process in general. I wanted to know if anything special > needed to be done for OpenJDK 7. There was mention of tags and such, so > I wanted to make sure they were filed correctly. Tags can be changed after a bug has been created, so there

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > On 07/27/2015 06:07 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > snip... > >> > >> Sure, we might well end up needing somewhere else to host releases. > >> That's a separate issue. > > > > Ok, I believe Omair is already working on a solution to that. > > > > So how do I go about

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/27/2015 06:07 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > snip... >> >> Sure, we might well end up needing somewhere else to host releases. >> That's a separate issue. > > Ok, I believe Omair is already working on a solution to that. > > So how do I go about filing OpenJDK bugs for the five issues that > ar

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

snip... > > Sure, we might well end up needing somewhere else to host releases. > That's a separate issue. > > Andrew. > Ok, I believe Omair is already working on a solution to that. So how do I go about filing OpenJDK bugs for the five issues that are part of this security update? Are there c

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/27/2015 04:45 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > snip... > >> >> Using a separate bug database is not a real solution, though. It's >> not at all clear to me that we benefit substantially enough from going >> outside the OpenJDK bug database but we lose continuity, the ability >> to search and link

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/27/2015 04:35 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > My entire position is founded on having upstream OpenJDK 7 *replace* > IcedTea in the long run. If we instead just want to do the minimum again - > file a few backport bugs as needed, keep everything else in IcedTea - then > yes, it really doesn't mat

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

snip... > > Using a separate bug database is not a real solution, though. It's > not at all clear to me that we benefit substantially enough from going > outside the OpenJDK bug database but we lose continuity, the ability > to search and link bugs, and so on. I'm not convinced that the > abili

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > On 7/24/15 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > to search and link bugs, and so on. I'm not convinced that the > > ability of non-Authors to create and edit bug reports is worth doing > > something so different from the rest of OpenJDK. > > Looking at > https://bugs.op

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/24/2015 01:32 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: > On 7/24/15 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> to search and link bugs, and so on. I'm not convinced that the >> ability of non-Authors to create and edit bug reports is worth doing >> something so different from the rest of OpenJDK. > > Looking at > h

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 7/24/15 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > to search and link bugs, and so on. I'm not convinced that the > ability of non-Authors to create and edit bug reports is worth doing > something so different from the rest of OpenJDK. Looking at https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22\

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 23/07/15 21:27, Andrew Hughes wrote: > >> So, the situation with OpenJDK 7 would be as with other projects, and >> people don't need to be, say, JDK9 committers to modify bug reports. >> And we can grant Author status to suitably-qualified contributors to >> OpenJDK 7. > > Can we? Yes. > As

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 24/07/2015 6:27 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: - Original Message - On 07/23/2015 03:20 PM, dalibor topic wrote: we can point people to the bug database to file bugs. As far as I'm aware, the OpenJDK bug database is only accessible to OpenJDK committers, so this would be a blocker to usi

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > On 07/23/2015 03:20 PM, dalibor topic wrote: > > > >> we can point people to the bug database to file bugs. As far as I'm aware, > >> the OpenJDK bug database is only accessible to OpenJDK committers, so this > >> would be a blocker to using it for the OpenJDK 7 proj

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/23/2015 03:20 PM, dalibor topic wrote: > >> we can point people to the bug database to file bugs. As far as I'm aware, >> the OpenJDK bug database is only accessible to OpenJDK committers, so this >> would be a blocker to using it for the OpenJDK 7 project. > > That's not quite correct: >

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 22.07.2015 22:28, Andrew Hughes wrote: I don't follow this. Are you saying something will happen when e.g. JDK-8043202 from the current security update [0] is pushed to the OpenJDK 7 tree? With the current jdk7u forest hgupdater configuration, a backport issue in the JDK JBS configuration

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 22.07.2015 21:04, Omair Majid wrote: What about manual OpenJDK7-specific issues? Can we create those manually? Yes. You could set 'Affects Version/s' to openjdk7u to differentiate them from other issues. Thank you, this clarifies things. Is there a way to say "We expect this bug to be re

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > On 23/07/2015 5:04 AM, Omair Majid wrote: > > Hi Dalibor, > > > > Thanks for the responses! I have a few follow on questions that mostly > > stem from my unfamiliarity with JIRA. > > > > * dalibor topic [2015-07-22 13:05]: > >> On 20.07.2015 17:36, Omair Majid wrote:

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 23/07/2015 5:04 AM, Omair Majid wrote: Hi Dalibor, Thanks for the responses! I have a few follow on questions that mostly stem from my unfamiliarity with JIRA. * dalibor topic [2015-07-22 13:05]: On 20.07.2015 17:36, Omair Majid wrote: Could be there be conflicts would Open and Proprietar

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > Hi Dalibor, > > Thanks for the responses! I have a few follow on questions that mostly > stem from my unfamiliarity with JIRA. > > * dalibor topic [2015-07-22 13:05]: > > On 20.07.2015 17:36, Omair Majid wrote: > > >Could be there be conflicts would Open and > > >P

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

Hi Dalibor, Thanks for the responses! I have a few follow on questions that mostly stem from my unfamiliarity with JIRA. * dalibor topic [2015-07-22 13:05]: > On 20.07.2015 17:36, Omair Majid wrote: > >Could be there be conflicts would Open and > >Proprietary bugs? If so, any tips to minimize th

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 22.07.2015 19:05, dalibor topic wrote: the generic 'openjdk7' version already exists for that purpose). typo - 'openjdk7u'. cheers, dalibor tolpic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V.

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 20.07.2015 17:36, Omair Majid wrote: On the flip side, would it be possible to continue using the standard JDK project for this? Yes, of course. Could be there be conflicts would Open and Proprietary bugs? If so, any tips to minimize those conflicts? An interesting potential source of co

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

Hi, * dalibor topic [2015-07-10 14:05]: > I assume based on other comments in the thread that part of the insecurity > about using JBS is due to the JDK Project in JBS being simultaneously used > by multiple different Projects. While there is a transaction cost argument > to be made about the ben

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/13/2015 04:46 PM, dalibor topic wrote: > so > I'd suggest picking JDK7U over longer alternatives But is there not a proprietary 7u project? Andrew.

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 13.07.2015 17:25, dalibor topic wrote: On 13.07.2015 10:45, Andrew Haley wrote: OK, so let me be sure I understand what you mean. We could create a new Project in JBS called (say) OpenJDK7u. It would therefore be separate from proprietary 7u. That sounds quite attractive. Yeah. On

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 13.07.2015 10:45, Andrew Haley wrote: OK, so let me be sure I understand what you mean. We could create a new Project in JBS called (say) OpenJDK7u. It would therefore be separate from proprietary 7u. That sounds quite attractive. Yeah. We'd still have the problem that only Authors co

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 10/07/15 19:04, dalibor topic wrote: > On 29.06.2015 12:44, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Which bug database should we use? The OpenJDK JIRA is the obvious >> choice, but access is very limited. For OpenJDK 6 updates we have >> been using the database at https://java.net/jira/browse/OPENJDK6, >> whic

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 29.06.2015 12:44, Andrew Haley wrote: Which bug database should we use? The OpenJDK JIRA is the obvious choice, but access is very limited. For OpenJDK 6 updates we have been using the database at https://java.net/jira/browse/OPENJDK6, which is much more accessible. Should we do the same fo

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 07/07/15 23:37, Volker Simonis wrote: > But there's one more thing to consider here: I don't know what patches you > have in IcedTea but merging them into the OpenJDK jdk7u-dev forest can only > be done under the Oracle Contribution Agreement. So if you should have any > patches in IcedTea for w

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On Monday, June 29, 2015, Andrew Haley wrote: > I'm looking at the existing rules for JDK 7 Updates, and I can't see > much that I think should be changed. There are some process rules which > we may not follow closely, and we should review them. > > https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/jdk7u/J

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

* Andrew Hughes [2015-07-07 16:28]: > Your idea about users is nice in theory, but it doesn't seem to work > out in practice. Can you elaborate? It seems to me like everyone who used the OpenJDK6 bug tracker was already an OpenJDK committer. > How is this any different to what I proposed? It's

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

- Original Message - > * Andrew Hughes [2015-07-07 14:51]: > > I'm working on the assumption so far that we'll use an OPENJDK7 > > instance equivalent to the one we did for OpenJDK 6. As you say, > > access to the OpenJDK JIRA is limited and it would be difficult > > for us to e.g. add mil

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

* Andrew Hughes [2015-07-07 14:51]: > I'm working on the assumption so far that we'll use an OPENJDK7 > instance equivalent to the one we did for OpenJDK 6. As you say, > access to the OpenJDK JIRA is limited and it would be difficult > for us to e.g. add milestones, additional users, etc. There

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

snip... > > Which bug database should we use? The OpenJDK JIRA is the obvious > choice, but access is very limited. For OpenJDK 6 updates we have > been using the database at https://java.net/jira/browse/OPENJDK6, > which is much more accessible. Should we do the same for OpenJDK 7? > I'm wor

Re: JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

On 29.06.2015 12:44, Andrew Haley wrote: Some of the content of the Wiki is out of date. In particular, the "JDK 7 Update Project Proposal Q & A" is somewhat misleading. I have lightly edited it, but as much of what it refers to has passed it perhaps makes more sense to delete it or replace i

JDK 7 Updates: Policy Changes

I'm looking at the existing rules for JDK 7 Updates, and I can't see much that I think should be changed. There are some process rules which we may not follow closely, and we should review them. https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/jdk7u/JDK+7+Updates%3A+Ground+Rules However, there are some iss