All of the https://github.com/AOSC-Tracking/jdk/ links 404 for me, so it's difficult to get a sense of what was being done. Going off of the "loongson fork" links though they look rather trivial. Not saying they should be ignored, but I do think trivial PRs to large critical open source projects like JDK can often end up taking more time away from contributing engineers doing reviews and testing than they are worth.
I know first-hand the frustration of having PRs ignored and it can be quite demoralizing, so I do feel for the author. It sounds like the author is getting to a place of peace with it, and my advice from having been down that path before is to do exactly that, and find something else interesting to hack on.
> For each of my emails, I got a reply, saying that they "sincerely apologize" and "@Dalibor Topic Can you please review...", with no actual progress being made.
then
> Sorry to hear this. .... @Dalibor Topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>, can we get this prioritized?
When I want to contribute to an open source project, I throw together some trivial but useful patches and see how the project responds.
Many projects behave this way, particularly those with corporate overlords. At best, it will take weeks to get a simple patch reviewed. By then, I have moved on, at least with my intention to send anything upstream. I commend the author for giving them a whole year, but I have found that is best a recipe for disappointment.
Maintainers: how you react to patches and PRs significantly influence whether or not you get skilled contributors. When I was maintaining such projects, I always tried to reply within 24 hours to new contributors.
It would be interesting to see how quickly the retention rate drops off as the time to review/accept patches goes up. I imagine it looks like an exponential drop off.
Have you found this actually works? I wouldn't be surprised if many projects happily accept trivial PRs (because they're easy to deal with) but then ignore or naysay anything more substantial.
I submitted a patch to Go once, and never got anything resembling a response. Told me that Go is more or less completely inaccessible; I should treat it as a Google product rather than a FOSS project I can contribute to. The Go standard library documentation bug I submitted a fix to still exists to this day.
This is the way. I disagree with your 24-hour timeline -- give it a week -- but whether and how they respond tells you a lot. Being welcoming to new contributors is crucial for the health of a project.
One time I was interested in contributing to an important part of some project, a part where they were nowhere and in dire need of help. As a first try I submitted a small patch correcting the README's build instructions, which were obviously wrong in one place. I got a lot of attitude and hostility, and they refused to accept the fix. Yeah, bye.
I have this theory that with LLMs getting better at writing code our current open source model (relatively few large projects that everyone contributes to, relatively rare to maintain your own fork) will invert and it will be easier and more common for people to have personalized forks and a lot of the problems around managing large open source projects will just become irrelevant
I know Java has a complicated history of ownership, but I'm not sure I understand why Oracle is able to block contributions to OpenJDK. I thought the point of OpenJDK was to be separate from Oracle. I'm not a Java developer, just curious how this works.
Corporations love open source when it delivers working code to their doorstep. They hate open source when it comes to actually maintaining and managing a community of developers who really do care about and use the core product.
So they create draconian "agreements" and "codes" to tilt the playing field entirely in their favor. It's entirely antithetical to the whole idea of open source.
These projects should be ruthlessly forked and all corporate development efforts ignored.
I have been trying to upstream patches to kubernetes and etcd for about a year and ended up giving up. It is impossible to get someone from the project to review my PRs, and since I cannot get PRs under my belt I can not become a maintainer either.
My suspicion is that you get ghosted if you don’t have a @google or @redhat email address and really the only way to become a contributor is to be buddies with someone who works on the project already.
I have considered going to one of the CNCF committee meetings and being like, hey you guys are not accepting new contributions which goes against your mandate. But in the end I just maintain local patches that don’t get upstreamed which is easier.
I haven't seen your PRs and I don't work on those project. I have small projects that receive few patches.
My experience of the few patches I have received though is they are 100% without exception, bad patches. Bad in that, without me putting an hour or 2 of work into them I can't just accept them. The most common case is no tests. The patch fixes an issue, but the issue exists because there was no test for the case the patch is fixing. So, to accept the PR, I have to download it and spend time writing a test.
Other common experiences are bad coding practices and non-matching styles so I have two choices
(1) spend 30-60 minutes downloading the patch, fixing these issues myself
(2) spend 40-60 minutes adding comments to try to get the person who posted the PR to make their patch acceptable (40-60 mins includes the back and forth).
More often than not, (2) never gets a response. The contributor's POV is they provided a fix and I should be happy to take it as is. I get that. At a certain level they are correct. But, these projects are hobby projects and I have limited time. So I generally don't do (2) because if they ignore the comments then it's wasted time, and (1) has the hurdle that I need to take an hour out to deal with it.
> It is impossible to get someone from the project to review my PRs
Sorry to say this, but this is natural. Writing patches is easy. Reviewing them is hard. Writing patches (and getting them accepted, merged) is rewarding and demonstrable (as a form of achievement). Reviewing patches, educating new contributors is sometimes rewarding, sometimes not (it's an investment into humans that sometimes pays off, sometimes doesn't), but mostly not a demonstrable achievement in either case. Therefore there is incentive to contribute, and hardly any incentive to review. This is why reviewers are extremely scarce in all open source projects, and why all sustainable projects optimize for reviewer/maintainer satisfaction, not for contributor satisfaction. As an external contributor, you just don't get to allocate scarce resources financed by some commercial entity with no relation to you.
If you want to become a maintainer, or at least want others to review your stuff, don't start by writing code. Start by reading code, and make attempts at reviewing code for others. Assuming you get good at it, established project members should start appreciating it, and might ask you to implement some stuff, which they could be willing to review for you. You first need to give the real kind of effort before you can take it.
And this is why "open development" is a total myth today. Resource allocation and work (chore) distribution are aspects of reality that completely break the wide-eyed, bushy-tailed "new contributors welcome" PR message. Opening up the source code (under whatever license) is one thing, collaborating with randos is an entirely different thing. Can you plan with them in advance? Do they adhere to your deadlines? Can you rely on them when things break? When there are regressions?
> you get ghosted if you don’t have a @google or @redhat email address and really the only way to become a contributor is to be buddies with someone who works on the project already
Yes, and the way to become buddies is to help them out where they are hurting: in their infinite patch review backlogs. Of course, that means you have to invest a whole lot of seemingly thankless learning, for the long run's sake. You have to become an expert with effectively nothing to show for it in the git history. It's totally fair not wanting to do that. Just understand that a ticket that remains open indefinitely, or an uncalled-for contribution that never gets reviewed and merged, may genuinely be better for the maintainers than taking on yet more responsibility for your one-off code contribution.
> I have considered going to one of the CNCF committee meetings and being like, hey you guys are not accepting new contributions which goes against your mandate
According to the above, I bet that "mandate" is a total fake; a PR move only. It does not reflect the actual interests of the organizations with the $$$, which is why it doesn't get followed.
You are right that those orgs should at least be honest and own up to NOT welcoming newcomers or external contributors.
Despite their OSS contributions, and the fact that they have their own Linux distro, oracle is one of the worst companies to deal with in terms of OSS. Very NIH syndrome, very gatekeep-y. I refuse to use grub because I know I'll never get bugs fixed since oracle claims ownership of the repo there as well.
There is an inverse relationship with respect to the size of an organization or project and its authors or maintainers willingness to review and merge pull requests.
The smaller a project, the more willing an author is to write the entire feature for you based on a plain request.
Go help smaller projects, the big ones don't care that you've submitted any work at all.
I confess, I'm an old guy, who was around when Open Source was still young. Being able to read the code, learn to be z better programmer, tweak it to my needs, control what was running on my machine.
Reading other comments on this thread it seems like the mood has shifted. Now there seems to be an expectation that Open Source means "you should promptly review and accept my changes".
There is much wailing that corporates (who, by the way, never used to release code at all) are somehow at fault for either existing, or not responding quick enough or requiring paperwork(!).
I'm not sure when pushing code upstream to Open Source became an entitlement. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there at the beginning and it's nor part if any license I'm aware of.
That wasn't the complaint. OP was trying to start the process to even be allowed to submit patches, but was stuck in Oracle's bureaucratic hell for a whole year.
If they didn't want his patches, they could have just said so, rather than stringing him along.
Oh yeah, Oracle; if you want to see where contributions come die see mysql-operator - ton of stuff broken, pull request fixes (like most obvious, no-brain bugfixes) slurped into bugs.mysql.com oblivion never seeing the light of day
35 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 56.7 ms ] threadI know first-hand the frustration of having PRs ignored and it can be quite demoralizing, so I do feel for the author. It sounds like the author is getting to a place of peace with it, and my advice from having been down that path before is to do exactly that, and find something else interesting to hack on.
> For each of my emails, I got a reply, saying that they "sincerely apologize" and "@Dalibor Topic Can you please review...", with no actual progress being made.
then
> Sorry to hear this. .... @Dalibor Topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>, can we get this prioritized?
This is pretty morbidly funny.
Many projects behave this way, particularly those with corporate overlords. At best, it will take weeks to get a simple patch reviewed. By then, I have moved on, at least with my intention to send anything upstream. I commend the author for giving them a whole year, but I have found that is best a recipe for disappointment.
Maintainers: how you react to patches and PRs significantly influence whether or not you get skilled contributors. When I was maintaining such projects, I always tried to reply within 24 hours to new contributors.
It would be interesting to see how quickly the retention rate drops off as the time to review/accept patches goes up. I imagine it looks like an exponential drop off.
I submitted a patch to Go once, and never got anything resembling a response. Told me that Go is more or less completely inaccessible; I should treat it as a Google product rather than a FOSS project I can contribute to. The Go standard library documentation bug I submitted a fix to still exists to this day.
One time I was interested in contributing to an important part of some project, a part where they were nowhere and in dire need of help. As a first try I submitted a small patch correcting the README's build instructions, which were obviously wrong in one place. I got a lot of attitude and hostility, and they refused to accept the fix. Yeah, bye.
So they create draconian "agreements" and "codes" to tilt the playing field entirely in their favor. It's entirely antithetical to the whole idea of open source.
These projects should be ruthlessly forked and all corporate development efforts ignored.
My suspicion is that you get ghosted if you don’t have a @google or @redhat email address and really the only way to become a contributor is to be buddies with someone who works on the project already.
I have considered going to one of the CNCF committee meetings and being like, hey you guys are not accepting new contributions which goes against your mandate. But in the end I just maintain local patches that don’t get upstreamed which is easier.
My experience of the few patches I have received though is they are 100% without exception, bad patches. Bad in that, without me putting an hour or 2 of work into them I can't just accept them. The most common case is no tests. The patch fixes an issue, but the issue exists because there was no test for the case the patch is fixing. So, to accept the PR, I have to download it and spend time writing a test.
Other common experiences are bad coding practices and non-matching styles so I have two choices
(1) spend 30-60 minutes downloading the patch, fixing these issues myself
(2) spend 40-60 minutes adding comments to try to get the person who posted the PR to make their patch acceptable (40-60 mins includes the back and forth).
More often than not, (2) never gets a response. The contributor's POV is they provided a fix and I should be happy to take it as is. I get that. At a certain level they are correct. But, these projects are hobby projects and I have limited time. So I generally don't do (2) because if they ignore the comments then it's wasted time, and (1) has the hurdle that I need to take an hour out to deal with it.
Sorry to say this, but this is natural. Writing patches is easy. Reviewing them is hard. Writing patches (and getting them accepted, merged) is rewarding and demonstrable (as a form of achievement). Reviewing patches, educating new contributors is sometimes rewarding, sometimes not (it's an investment into humans that sometimes pays off, sometimes doesn't), but mostly not a demonstrable achievement in either case. Therefore there is incentive to contribute, and hardly any incentive to review. This is why reviewers are extremely scarce in all open source projects, and why all sustainable projects optimize for reviewer/maintainer satisfaction, not for contributor satisfaction. As an external contributor, you just don't get to allocate scarce resources financed by some commercial entity with no relation to you.
If you want to become a maintainer, or at least want others to review your stuff, don't start by writing code. Start by reading code, and make attempts at reviewing code for others. Assuming you get good at it, established project members should start appreciating it, and might ask you to implement some stuff, which they could be willing to review for you. You first need to give the real kind of effort before you can take it.
And this is why "open development" is a total myth today. Resource allocation and work (chore) distribution are aspects of reality that completely break the wide-eyed, bushy-tailed "new contributors welcome" PR message. Opening up the source code (under whatever license) is one thing, collaborating with randos is an entirely different thing. Can you plan with them in advance? Do they adhere to your deadlines? Can you rely on them when things break? When there are regressions?
> you get ghosted if you don’t have a @google or @redhat email address and really the only way to become a contributor is to be buddies with someone who works on the project already
Yes, and the way to become buddies is to help them out where they are hurting: in their infinite patch review backlogs. Of course, that means you have to invest a whole lot of seemingly thankless learning, for the long run's sake. You have to become an expert with effectively nothing to show for it in the git history. It's totally fair not wanting to do that. Just understand that a ticket that remains open indefinitely, or an uncalled-for contribution that never gets reviewed and merged, may genuinely be better for the maintainers than taking on yet more responsibility for your one-off code contribution.
> I have considered going to one of the CNCF committee meetings and being like, hey you guys are not accepting new contributions which goes against your mandate
According to the above, I bet that "mandate" is a total fake; a PR move only. It does not reflect the actual interests of the organizations with the $$$, which is why it doesn't get followed.
You are right that those orgs should at least be honest and own up to NOT welcoming newcomers or external contributors.
The process was much more involved than anything I'd previously signed, and it was slow, but in my case eventually got approved.
It mostly involved some emails with an actual human and PDF's to be docu-signed.
Wait what? Source on this? GRUB is supposed to be a GNU Project, I would've thought they'd rather die than accept any sort of Oracle ownership of it.
The smaller a project, the more willing an author is to write the entire feature for you based on a plain request.
Go help smaller projects, the big ones don't care that you've submitted any work at all.
Never forget: One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison still runs this company.
https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2026-January/...
Reading other comments on this thread it seems like the mood has shifted. Now there seems to be an expectation that Open Source means "you should promptly review and accept my changes".
There is much wailing that corporates (who, by the way, never used to release code at all) are somehow at fault for either existing, or not responding quick enough or requiring paperwork(!).
I'm not sure when pushing code upstream to Open Source became an entitlement. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there at the beginning and it's nor part if any license I'm aware of.
If they didn't want his patches, they could have just said so, rather than stringing him along.
CLAs are a cancer.