On 12/05/2008, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "David" == David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > David> I am not an expert in this realm, but this may be small enough > David> so that an assignment is not necessary. > > Yes, I agree, particularly because there is really only one fix for > this -- delete the '+' code.
It would be small enough, was this his only contribution. But his mention of commit rights implies previous contributions and there are several ChangeLog entries: ChangeLog-2005:2005-12-18 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-12-14 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-12-04 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-12-04 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-12-03 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-10-28 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-10-21 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005:2005-10-21 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2005: Reported by Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ChangeLog-2006:2006-01-16 Nicolas Geoffray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This does imply to me that he already has an assignment, but either he or mjw needs to confirm this. Actually, the proposed patch doesn't > seem to go far enough in that direction... AFAICT a leading '+' is not > allowed at all; there's no reason to check for it specially. > > > Tom > This strikes me as odd too, but I haven't yet had chance to test the code itself against OpenJDK. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
