On 02/06/2014 11:01 AM, Phil Race wrote:
Joe,
We will get an integration going soon, so you won't have to wait too
long.
Its more important to be consistent in that we get the client code in
the client forest.
We already had to deal with a merge problem due to changes to client
code made in dev.
So from now on if you have changes to client code, the client team's
polite request is
you make them in the client forest after appropriate review.
Well, if all the client library (2D, awt, swing) changes went the dev
forest directly, that would be another way to get consistency ;-)
As many of the files I'm changing as part of the warnings cleanup have
been untouched for five, ten, or in sometimes fifteen years, I would
appreciate prompt reviews, especially when the changes are broken into
small, easy to review portions:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2014-February/006934.html
-Joe
-phil.
On 2/6/2014 9:54 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
On 02/06/2014 12:48 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/02/2014 23:55, Phil Race wrote:
Joe,
This help is very much appreciated but can you please re-generate
your webrev against jdk9/client and I'll review it then.
If this is a problem for you then instead I can take your final
patch and
commit into the client forest on your behalf.
Let me know which you prefer.
All of these cleanups have (so far anyway) been pushed to jdk9/dev
but there is clearly confusion as to where changes to
AWT/Swing/2D/other code should be pushed. I hijacked one of Joe's
recent reviews to restart that discussion:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2014-January/004181.html
but I didn't see any replies except from Joe.
-Alan.
For the files involved in this review, when I checked late last
night, the unmodified versions of the files were identical in the
dev and client forests.
I've been using the results of an (unfortunately Oracle-internal
only) CI job run against the dev forest to track how we are doing on
warnings. Since December 2013, progress has been steady, with ~800
warnings being removed from client code.
My preference is to push this fix into dev and the for the
maintainers of the client forest to sync it down. Unless there is a
prompt and regular integration of client into dev, I don't want to
first push these cleanup fixes to the client forest since there won't
be prompt registration of the reduced warnings and because it would
complicate efforts to fix all the warnings in a category and then
enable checks in the build.
The goal here is not just to eliminate the warnings, but to eliminate
them and make sure they cannot come back :-)
-Joe
