I personally have no objection but I cannot speak for the others who posted to the discussion thread
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-December/030376.html Thanks, Brian On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Joseph D. Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Getting back to this issue in the new year, taking a closer look at the > existing class-level documentation, I don't really see a compelling case for > an edit this large. > > I for one would be content if the bug were closed as "not an issue." > > HTH, > > -Joe > > On 12/22/2014 10:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >> Please review at your convenience: >> >> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067669 >> Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8067669/webrev.00/ >> >> Summary: >> >> Add some verbiage. >> >> I would advocate either changing the verbiage either to the content in the >> patch or something better, or resolving the issue as “Not an Issue.” >> >> Thanks, >> >> Brian
