> From that email on we started diving into the containment methods > instead of solveCubic and the email you refer to doesn't have a webrev > link to the code with your changes. Is there a final webrev for the > solveCubic changes?
This e-mail: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2011-January/001777.html has an attachment with what I think should be the final algorithm. It's not a final webrev, because I wanted to make sure you're ok with the way things are being done. If yes, I'll make a webrev that includes regression tests (for this and my last push) and send it. Regards, Denis. ----- Original Message ----- > > ...jim > > On 1/21/2011 1:00 PM, Denis Lila wrote: > >> I think so, but Phil knows more about the scripts that verify a > >> push. > >> > >> I think they do look for the bugids in the regression tests so I > >> don't > >> know what happens if they find a mismatch. I think you are probably > >> OK > >> as long as one of the tests lists the bug you are claiming to fix > >> on > >> that push... > > > > By the way, is the cubic solver improvement good to go? I tried to > > address the last concerns and questions you had about it in this > > e-mail: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2011-January/001769.html > > where I also propose some concrete documentation changes. > > > > Thank you, > > Denis.
