Aleksey, I would support Mark here. Clear patch is very important because it makes our lives much easier and we are not required to skip 70K of irrelevant text to see 2 relevant lines :) So I think that your idea is good but should be better delivered :)
Take a look at "Good Issue Resolution Guideline" for example. http://harmony.apache.org/issue_resolution_guideline.html SY, Alexey 2008/4/23, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 23 April 2008 at 0:36, "Aleksey Shipilev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi Endre, > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Endre St=F8lsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro= > > te: > > > Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > > > > The reason behind all that changes is that entire IdentityHashMap > > > > implementation was thrown away and replaced by HashMap > > > > > > Isn't it possible to actually record this fact using SVN, by > > > deleting the file, and then adding it again (or svn copy it from > > > HashMap) - so that it doesn't look like a *change*, but more what it > > > actually is: a remove, and then an add (actually, a copy)? > > > > Unfortunately, that's not usable, you might play around to see why. If > > you find a solution, please let me know :) > > Fortunately, it is not compulsory to create patches with "svn diff". > I've just done: > > 1) apply your patch to a fresh checkout > 2) cp modules/luni/src/main/java/java/util/HashMap.java \ > modules/luni/src/main/java/java/util/IdentityHashMap.java.orig > 3) diff -u modules/luni/src/main/java/java/util/IdentityHashMap.java.orig \ > modules/luni/src/main/java/java/util/IdentityHashMap.java > > The resulting patch would be much more suitable for attachment to a JIRA. > > I'd still fix a few things about HashMap.java first though. > -Mark. > > >
