Re: future content of OpenJFX

While it's good to know who is interested in what areas, I think it's hard to create a list of interested or capable people as that depends on motivations. There are many developers who used to work on the JavaFX team who are now working elsewhere. That means there is plenty of knowledge and

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

Jonathan - why do you *cough* at ideas like more complex controls and docking frameworks? I think that a docking framework especially would be a great addition to JavaFX. Am I missing something? > On 7 Feb 2018, at 18:16, Jonathan Giles wrote: > > Obviously

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

Obviously everyone is at ControlsFX instead ;-) Part of the drop I would suggest is simply that many of the itches people want to scratch are now scratched. Alternatively, the remaining itches are either in more complex controls (*cough* docking frameworks *cough*) or in areas beneath the

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

Many years ago I had a discussion with Jonathan Giles about if the things that were being made in JFXtras would eventually become part of the JavaFX core. In the end I decided that, for me personally, I could do the things I wanted to perfectly in a separate project. The rigid structure that

Re: JDK-8196130: Eclipse configuration files need to be updated

Looks good. -- Kevin Nir Lisker wrote: Attached updated webrev. Changed line endings. If something is still wrong you can change it. You were right about the missing web source folder. Project now builds without errors. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Kevin Rushforth

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

I would recommend against having a separate issue tracker or mailing list associated with the sandbox. That will create more confusion than any benefit you might have. -- Kevin Nir Lisker wrote: Another thing to be careful about with the sandbox/staging idea is the confusion that will arise

Re: future content of OpenJFX

+1 This makes sense.    Having a list of who might be willing to contribute and in what areas they are willing to contribute dictates where we can go.    As Rumsfeld once said "You go to war with the army have, not the one you want". Steve Sent from iCloud On Feb 06, 2018, at 06:41 AM,

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

>> 2018-02-06 14:29 GMT+01:00 dalibor topic : >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02.02.2018 00:26, Kevin Rushforth wrote: We are specifically looking to discuss ideas around the following areas: * Easing barriers to contribution (e.g., making JavaFX easier to

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

Another thing to be careful about with the sandbox/staging idea is the confusion that will arise with duplication. There will be 2 issue trackers (JBS and GitHub (or GitHub-like)), 2 repo addresses, 2 wikis, and maybe 2 discussion lists. For those "in the know" this will be a simple matter, but

Re: future content of OpenJFX

Thanks for confirming my “theory” :-) And just for clarity, I wasn’t referring to “observers” or “lurkers” in a derogatory fashion. In fact, it makes complete sense to only get involved when it enables you to make the most efficient use of your time. Who knows, the size of the “talent pool”

Re: future content of OpenJFX

On 02/05/2018 08:14 PM, John-Val Rose wrote: ... is it possible that there are lots and lots of “observers” or “lurkers” out there just waiting until all the hard work of setting-up the physical and formal infrastructure to enable community contribution has been finalised before they’ll put

[11] Review request for 8196592: Mark unstable tests so they will be skipped until fixed

  Hi Kevin, Please review the below simple fix. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196592   webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbilla/8196592/webrev.00/ Thanks, Murali

Re: JDK-8196130: Eclipse configuration files need to be updated

Attached webrev for .classpath changes for all javafx.xxx projects under /modules (though 2 of them are not modules). Change details: - The files were completely rewritten for Eclipse's current modular support, version 4.8M5, which is pre-release. - Some projects also need to change

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

On 02.02.2018 00:26, Kevin Rushforth wrote: We are specifically looking to discuss ideas around the following areas: * Easing barriers to contribution (e.g., making JavaFX easier to build, better documentation, making it easier to test changes) I'd suggest explicitly asking for feedback

Re: JDK-8196130: Eclipse configuration files need to be updated

It looks fine to me, although the files should be change back to have UNIX-style line endings to minimize diffs (I can easily do that when I push the change for you). As for the javafx.web failures, you likely won't get any different results when building webkit. To fix these failures, you

Re: future content of OpenJFX

I think ref: numbers of developers, the willingness of Oracle to open JavaFX up to the community has not reached significant numbers. There are a lot of people who've lost interest in following the framework a long time ago. If we are going to improve the low level rendering API, (I've a great

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

Hi, Well Eclipse.org repositories at Github have support to track if you signed a CLA with the Eclipse Foundation and I'm unable to merge PRs if that check fails. Tom On 06.02.18 13:48, dalibor topic wrote: > > > On 05.02.2018 15:41, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Yes, this sounds like a good step

Re: future content of OpenJFX

I think this is a great way to frame the discussion. To add to the part about developers sometimes being willing to contribute part of the cost for feature X, I would say that in some (many?) cases, those developers might even think that they are doing the entire job by implementing feature

Fwd: More community participation in JavaFX

I don't kow if it is sufficient. But there's a CLA assistant for GitHub repositories: https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant Regards, Michael -- Michael Hoffer Twitter: @mihosoft Webpage: www.mihosoft.eu Goethe-Zentrum für Wissenschaftliches Rechnen (G-CSC) Goethe-Universität

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

On 05.02.2018 15:41, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Yes, this sounds like a good step in the right direction. This would give anyone (with a signed OCA) the ability to create their own branch, commit changes to it, submit a PR, etc. One non-obvious point to keep in mind is that you do need to make

Re: future content of OpenJFX

Maybe Kevin could request that anyone who is seriously both willing and capable to contribute to OpenJFX email him privately so that the list doesn’t get to “see” anyone who wants to fly under the radar. Kevin could then post the approximate number of resources actually available. I realise of

Re: future content of OpenJFX

A poll would definitely be useful because we may find ourselves another subset. The subset of people who even want to go “off road” to begin with. Most people only consider going places where the road already leads—and that might be about 99%. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 5, 2018, at

Re: future content of OpenJFX

+1 * more alignment with mobile * a clean and lean low-level rendering pipeline API that would allow easier plugability with upcoming low-level rendering systems I would like to add a higher level desire * a consensus that JavaFX will continue to open itself more to integration. It has a rumour