Am 06.10.2021 um 17:04 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski
<mizdebsk(a)redhat.com>:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:27 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 04.10.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com>:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>>> However, we lack concepts on how to proceed after removing java-maint-sig.
What consequences do we draw from the analyses?
>>
>> β¦ If you want
>> to improve docs, just do it. And so on. ...
>> ... or to plan editing the wiki. Whoever wants to clean up some wiki
>> pages can simply do so, without asking.
>
> Itβs not as easy as you think of. That way you will end with the docs as Stephen
Smoogen described 4 posts back, just chaos and misinformation. You need collaboration and
agreement (shared plan) from participants in all affected areas - including you as the
(main) developer of a core package (not writing text, but e.g check the concept, check
technical correctness and completeness). It simply doesnβt work the way you are
proposing.
Sure, some major changes may indeed require planning or cooperation.
That's what we have the SIG and its communication channels for. For
example, if I wanted to rewrite Java documentation and move it from
the wiki to
docs.fedoraproject.org at the same time, I would start
with sending a proposal to java-devel mailing list and ask for
feedback. We would discuss what should and what should not be
documented, who wants to document what and so on. Depending on how the
discussion goes there, I might propose an IRC meeting to ease the
discussion process.
Thanks. I will make some suggestions once I get through my current backlog (in about 2
weeks). Of course, I'm also willing to actually write texts then (and keep them up to
date).
> You are one of the developers without whose contributions the
Fedora Java stack would probably collapse in a short time. I would really be interested
in the same question as to Mat: With java-paint-sig removed, are you really completely
content with the Fedora Java world? No change? No improvement anywhere?
I'm happy with how Java SIG works in general - as an informal group
that does not limit packagers freedom, like by enforcing agile
processes, or mandating code review for every change. I like that Java
SIG doesn't have any authority to make any decisions - there can be
discussion, but ultimately each package owner makes decisions
β¦...
I also promise to document ongoing or planned projects that I am or
would like to be working on. Then anyone interested will be able to
more easily see what is going on, and possibly help with these
projects. Some of the projects that I have in mind:
Ongoing:
- MBI (Maven Bootstrap Initiative, an ability to build Maven and XMvn
fully from source from scratch, without reliance on pre-existing
binaries),
- Maven JDK bindings (ability to choose version of JDK used by Maven
at installation time),
- XMvn toolchains (ability to switch JDK used to build packages by
changing a single line of BuildRequires),
- embedded metadata for security scanners inside JARs (to reduce the
number of false-positives the scanners report),
- downstream patch tracking (similar to Debian DEP-3),
- updating Java packaging docs and moving them to
docs.fedoraproject.org.
Planned or considered:
- redesign of auto-requires on JRE packages (bug 1993879),
- adding simple functional tests (smoke tests) for various packages,
- running upstream tests as gating tests (that allows running tests
that can't be ran during rpmbuild due to unpackaged dependencies),
- making use of gating and CI infrastructure to run generic Java tests
(that enforce packaging guidelines and bytecode version),
- browsable API documentation (javadocs extracted from RPMs and served
on a website),
- bringing back java-deptools (search engine for Java classes within
RPM packages that I used to host),
- updating Java Packaging HOWTO (writing missing sections, removing or
rewriting outdated parts).
Many thanks for that valuable information! Am very glad (and think it's important) to
read here such concrete and constructive perspectives alternatively to the posts that
(overly) point out the weak points (which also exist, as in any somewhat more complex
project) and that may spread a factually misleading message.
> And just in case you see some preferable improvement anywhere,
what do you think should be done to promote and achieve this?
I have no idea, other than doing the work myself and communicating
what I'm doing and why, hoping others will join the effort. I'm not
the best person to ask about promotion or community building.
I hope I can help out here.
Peter
β
Dr. Peter Boy
UniversitΓ€t Bremen
Mary-Sommerville-Str. 5
28359 Bremen
Germany
pboy(a)uni-bremen.de
www.uni-bremen.de
ββββββββββββββββ
Are you looking for a web content management system for scientific research
organizations?
Have a look at
http://www.scientificcms.org