2009/3/27 Anthony Petrov <[email protected]>: > Hi Andrew, > > On 03/24/2009 08:46 PM Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> >> Yes I am on this list, but the intention of a bug report is for such >> discussions to go on there. It is now harder to follow the progress >> of this patch as it's discussed in two separate places. I could have >> posted the patch to the mailing list to begin with, should I have >> wanted discussion to take place here. > > I totally agree with you. However, we currently don't have much choice: if I > wouldn't send the review request to this list, nobody but a few people, that > I would ask to review the fix personally, would be informed about this > patch. On the other hand, sending the review request here I can't tell > people not to post their replies here, but rather use the bugzilla comments > to discuss the patch. > > Yes, I understand that the current process is odd and awkward. This is being > worked on right now at Sun. I believe we'll come up with a better procedure > to work with bugzilla-submitted patches soon. For now, let us please do the > reviewing the way we can. > >> I agree with the comment about the exception, as that's usually how I >> would handle it too - it's bad to swallow exceptions. > > Could you please send an updated patch? > >> I also agree with the comment about the proxy, but such a refactoring >> warrants a new bug. > > I'm OK with this. > > -- > best regards, > Anthony >
Revised version attached. -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) 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
icedtea-tests-jdk-awt.patch
Description: Binary data
