On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:34 +0100, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 25/10/2011 01:21, Lana Steuck wrote: > > To: TL and Awt teams > > What: we have a jcheck conflict in jdk8/tl/jdk and jdk8/awt/jdk > > repos: > > same Bugid # 7100054 used in two different changesets (one in > > tl/jdk, the other in awt/jdk repo) > > > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/f218e6bdf1e8 > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c3da0672a882 > > > > neil.richa...@ngmr.net > > 7100054: (porting) Native code should include fcntl.h and unistd.h > > rather than sys/fcntl.h and sys/unistd.h > > Summary: Use POSIX defined includes for unistd.h and fcntl.h > I think I may be partly to blame here. Neil did ask whether he needed > a separate CR for the AWT change and I told him ([1]) that one was > sufficient. I didn't realize he was thinking of splitting the changes > though as there wasn't any real need to do this for this. > > -Alan > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-October/007926.html >
I'm sorry for the confusion here. The review of the AWT part of the change went down a different path (onto a different mailing list) to the core-libs part, and as AWT has its own component repository, it seemed to make most sense to me to commit the core-libs bit to the core-libs component repo, and the AWT bit to the AWT repo. Hence why I asked about whether I needed one bug id or two. I obviously didn't make the correct inference from Alan's reply (that I should commit all the change into one repo). I'm sorry this caused a problem. Please let me know what I can do in helping to rectify things. Thanks, Neil -- Unless stated above: IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
