Re: Subject: CFV: New JDK 10 Committer: Erik Österlund (original) (raw)

Claes Redestad claes.redestad at oracle.com
Thu Jun 22 13:36:09 UTC 2017

On 2017-06-22 14:45, jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com wrote:

No rule change needed, but a social shift is long overdue. I'm not sure what you mean by social shift. Do you mean that we should lower the bar for what a significant change is? Or do you mean that we should let our friends slip by because we know that they are good developers?

I think your bar for what's considered a significant change is generally way too high, yes, especially for a Committer rule.

Does it fix a failing test, a failing build, or adjust the behavior of the product in some measurable way? -> Significant. Shouldn't matter if it's just adding a volatile qualifier.

Fixing typos, adding a test to Problem list -> Not significant

I agree that the rules could be changed to make it easier to become a Committer. Personally I would like to merge Author and Committer and say that anyone that has proven an interest in contributing to the OpenJDK by submitting a few patches could become what we today call Committer. But the rules are in place as is and we should follow them in the same way as we would if the vote was about someone that we didn't know.

I agree that the rules are to be followed, I just don't agree with the justification that any of the changes Erik has done so far are insignificant and should motivate a veto.

I fully agree that the rules should be changed, mostly to take out the wording of "significant" from the rules (instead explicitly enumerate what types of changes are not to be counted), but merging the Author and Committer roles would also be welcome.

/Claes

More information about the jdk10-dev mailing list