> On 19 May 2017, at 11:15, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> 
> wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 09:15, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Magnus,
>> On 18/05/2017 8:06 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-18 09:35, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2017 5:32 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-05-18 08:25, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174231
>>>>>> webrevs:
>>>>>> Build-related: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8174231/webrev.top/
>>>>> Build changes look  good.
>>>> Thanks Magnus! I just realized I left in the AC_MSG_NOTICE debugging 
>>>> prints outs - do you want me to remove them? I suppose they may be useful 
>>>> if something goes wrong on some platform.
>>> I didn't even notice them. :-/
>>> It's a bit unfortunate we don't have a debug level on the logging from 
>>> configure. :-( Otherwise they would have clearly belonged there.
>>> The AC_MSG_NOTICE messages stands out much from the rest of the configure 
>>> log, so maybe it's better that you remove them. The logic itself is very 
>>> simple, if the -D flags are missing then we can surely tell what happened. 
>>> So yes, please remove them.
>> Webrev updated in place.
> Code looks good!
> In the future, I very much prefer if you do not update webrevs in place. It's 
> hopeless if you start reading a thread after some updates have occured, the 
> mails don't make any sense, and it's hard to follow after-the-fact how the 
> patch evolved.

Is there any chance openjdk code reviewing will adopt a slightly more modern 
process than webrevs such as Crucible where a full history of code evolution 
during a review is preserved?


Reply via email to