On 12/6/11 12:46 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 06/12/2011 18:46, Michael Barker wrote:
Attached is the latest LJC warnings patch. I've merged all of the
changes into a single patch. The one I'm unsure of the comments on
the @SuppressWarnings("deprecation") in the ZipEntry.java. I've been
fairly terse and just mentioned that it's using the date
methods/constructor.
I looked at the updated patch and it looks fine to me. There are other classes
in j.u.jar and j.u.logging that also have warnings but fixing the warnings is
the classes you've chosen is fine too. The comments on the
@SuppressWarnings("deprecation") in ZipEntry look okay to me too.
Hi Mike,
OK, I think we've finally converged on this one. I've produced an updated
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/7117249/webrev.1/
I don't have any further issues, and I think you've addressed everybody else's
already. But I do have a question. In the JDK8 projects, the changeset comments
have a specific format that must be adhered to. The comment I currently have is:
7117249: fix warnings in java.util.jar, .logging, .prefs, .zip
Reviewed-by: alanb, dholmes, forax, sherman, smarks
Contributed-by: London Java Community and Michael Barker <mike...@gmail.com>
The first two lines are pretty much prescribed. The third line is intended to
identify the contributors. I made an initial guess as you can see above, or I
can put something else, such as specific names, if you prefer. The syntax is
fairly restrictive, though; it needs to be "name <email@domain>" or a
comma-separated list of these. (One or more bare email@domain are acceptable as
well.)
Since the changeset comment is baked for all eternity, :-) I wanted to make
sure I got it right before proceeding. But basically this is the last thing
that needs to be resolved before I can push in the changes. Let me know.
(By the way Alan, thanks for jumping in with this review, it was quite helpful.)
s'marks
