This "This would then be a different subproject, with a different schedule, committers set, GitHub oraganization than "main" JDT" indicates it is supposed to be something like
https://github.com/eclipse-jdt-javac?
Yes, exactly.
2) The
https://github.com/eclipse-jdtls/eclipse-jdt-core-incubator is currently a *fork* of
https://github.com/eclipse-jdt/eclipse.jdt.core repository, with all the code from JDT included, some modified & some added. I can't see how a fork can be an independent subproject, but probably this can be solved by properly separating the code, pushing all modified JDT code upstream and creating a fully independent set of projects that *consume* JDT core instead of forking it. So in my understanding, before anything new & independent is created, "forking" problem has to be solved, otherwise it is not independent project per definition.
The forked code is here for convenience, but no forked code is shipped (and usually, only forked org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.model is built, all other bundles are picked from upstream JDT-Core at build time). The only artifact that matters in the end if the org.eclipse.jdt.core.javac fragment.
The reason for keeping some forked code from upstream are
* We have many changes in org.eclipse.jdt.core.model.tests that are more "workarounds" for things Javac does differently, but not worse, than what is specified by the test and that we don't want to bother upstream JDT with at this stage, but we also want to easily get the new tests added upstream easily included in the Javac-based tests; having the ability to `git pull jdtCore` is very helpful for that.
* We sometimes want to try some changes in org.eclipse.jdt.core bundle and run the Javac test suite on CI with those changes before creating a PR upstream. The separation makes things much harder for these (not so frequent) case, keeping a fork makes things simpler. This particular workflow can be reconsidered and implemented differently so org.eclipse.jdt.core is not usually part of this repo.
Do you think this explanation makes the "fork" more acceptable?
Cheers
