Yes, its a client-libs thing. We've always (10 years+) asked for two
reviewers
except for trivial reviews. I don't think I can count the number of times
one reviewer has spotted something the other one missed. Maybe Doug ?
-phil.
On 9/10/2014 2:41 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Phil Race <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/10/2014 2:31 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I have tried to cross all the t's left here. I took your
suggestion and minimized the test greatly. I've taken
ownership of the bug and it's now marked noreg-hard.
I'm inclined to check in the test case as is, even though it's
manual. But I leave that to you, the 2d maintainers.
The only testing I've done is to run the one manual test.
Hope that's OK.
OK to commit this fix?
Do we yet have a 2nd reviewer on the change ?
Is that a client-libs-thing? In core-libs, one reviewer is enough for
jdk9.
This patch has been in use at Google for a while.
Other than that its fine by me.
