From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 18 04:51:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C38116A628 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 04:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr [139.124.41.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D4443E1D for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 04:14:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: from arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (localhost.esil.univ-mrs.fr [127.0.0.1])i4IBEZa4025736 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:14:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: (from rv@localhost) by arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i4IBEZH7025735 for java@freebsd.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:14:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) X-Authentication-Warning: arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr: rv set sender to herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr using -f Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:14:35 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz To: java@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040518111435.GA25137@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Mail-Followup-To: java@freebsd.org References: <40A9BB85.8010406@noc.ntua.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40A9BB85.8010406@noc.ntua.gr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: general question about java port PRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:51:53 -0000 I agree with that: only use the Java category for JDK issues. I still have a problem to decide whether a PR related to bsd.java.mk should be sent in 'java' or 'ports'. Anyway, I have decided sometime ago to submit everything related to ports in 'ports', unless it is identified as a 'java' issue, i.e. an issue that shoud be discussed on freebsd-java@ (such as bsd.java.mk stuff, JAR location...). I think you're right to wonder about that Mark, because we are probably doing wrong only because of the lack of an established (and published) policy. BTW, maybe this decision should be notified in the Java section of the porter's handbook so Java porters know what to do with their PRs. Herve On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:30:13AM +0300, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: > >I was surprised to find that some of the Java ports had PRs filed > >against them, but not under the 'ports' category, instead under the > >'java' classification. As some of you may be aware, I have written a > >set of programs that attempt to track the status of ports PRs and > >correlate them with build errors seen on the build farm (among other > >data: see portsmon.firepipe.net). However, I only track things under > >'ports', not 'java'. > > > >Shouldn't the 'java' category be reserved for such things as problems > >with the JDK/JREs, or would you prefer that these ports PRs be left in > >that category as well? > > I have been wondering about that as well. I believe that the 'java' > category should be reserved for JDKs. Ordinary port upgrades and problem > reports could benefit from the larger pool of commiters & volunteers > monitoring the freebsd-ports list. I think that only three persons > attend to java PRs (glewis, phantom & znerd). > > Cheers,