[lsb-discuss] LSB/OpenJDK GSOC Draft

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Fri Mar 13 07:22:41 PDT 2009


Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>> In message <49B969FB.5050108 at sun.com>, Dalibor Topic
>> <Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM> writes
>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:12:00PM -0600, Kay Tate wrote:
>>>>> "different" in line 4
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do we assume that the resulting product will still be "Java," or
>>>>> should we mention standard testing?
>>>> I thought about adding a requirement to use the TCK, but the TCK
>>>> has interesting legal issues with respect to getting access to the
>>>> TCK. 
>>> That would likely go beyond the time of the GSoC - setting the TCK
>>> up can be a small project all by itself for someone new to it, not
>>> to mention running something past it - it's huge.
>>> 
>> In which, the question is "do we want it to be standard java?".
>> 
>> If the answer is "yes", then we should add something along the lines
>> of "while we don't expect the student to run it past the TCK, the
>> work must be done with the goal of it passing the TCK".
> 
> There is a slight semantic problem there - compatibility statements
> only really make sense for binaries, rather then source code, so it's
> orthogonal to any source code changes by themselves.
> 
> What you probably want there is to encourage the student to submit
> their changes to the corresponding projects in OpenJDK, where Fedora
> and RHEL build their TCK-tested binaries from, and let the downstream
> distributions that are doing their testing anyway work with the
> student to ensure that the potential changes if/when they are
> integrated are not breaking desirable properties of the resulting
> binaries, whether those are compatibility claims, performance, or
> stability. 

seems like I said this somewhere already, but I'll echo it:
part of the plan should be to submit to upstream (openjdk),
and hopefully have built some bridges there so it's not just
a pure code-drop-and-run.  acceptance of such changes can't
be an absolute requirement, but "working with the community
to make the changes acceptable" ought to be a goal, no?



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list