Fix is fine, trivial and I do not think there is any risk attached to it. I am not in any position to comment whether this is P1. Copyright year needs adjusting.
Kind Regards, Thomas On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > can I please get a review for the following tiny fix: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/ > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927 > > The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property > mandatory  but the current implementations doesn't allow to set it > to an empty string. > > Currently, if we don't configure the build with > --with-vendor-version=XXX the 'java.vendor.version' property won't be > set at all, which violates the spec. Setting it to an empty string > will be ignored and has the same behavior like not setting it at all. > This also makes default OpenJDK builds (which haven't been configured > with --with-vendor-version non-compliant). > > The fix is trivial: unconditionally set the 'java.vendor.version' > property to the value of VENDOR_VERSION_STRING in > VersionProps.java.template, even if VENDOR_VERSION_STRING is the empty > string (which is the default if --with-vendor-version wasn't given at > config time). > > Thank you and best regards, > Volker > > >  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/10/pfd/java-se-10-pfd- > spec/apidiffs/java/lang/System-report.html#method:getProperties() >