----- Original Message ----- > > As this is a backport, there's no reason to allocate an OPENJDK6 bug > to it. > Will openjdk6 jcheck pass my changes with the 7-digit openjdk bug id? I > wasn't aware.
It allows either. :) > > >The original information could have been used, perhaps with the > additional reviewer. > > I am fine with any format. If you can point me to a web/wiki page with > proper guidelines - I would be happy to follow those as well. > > >Now it looks like Azul wrote this patch, which I don't believe is the > case. > > Unlike the previous change (VS2010 support) here I did not update > copyrights on files exactly because I do not see us as true authors for > this particular patch. So it was certainly not my intention to make this > patch look like it was authored at Azul. However I did want to give the > guys credit for doing proper testing of the produced bits as part of the > backport effort. > I've tended to just retain the original information e.g.: changeset: 893:7aa071f95dac user: prr date: Wed Apr 30 13:10:39 2008 -0700 files: make/sun/font/FILES_c.gmk make/sun/font/Makefile src/share/classes/sun/font/FileFontStrike.java src/share/classes/sun/font/FontManager.java src/share/classes/sun/font/TrueTypeFont.java src/windows/classes/sun/awt/Win32GraphicsEnvironment.java src/windows/native/sun/font/lcdglyph.c test/java/awt/Graphics2D/DrawString/ScaledLCDTextMetrics.java description: 6656651: Windows Look and Feel LCD glyph images have some differences from native applications. Reviewed-by: igor, tdv but, as you say, that doesn't give credit for the backporting work. On the other hand, if I'd gone to the other extreme, over 90% of the OpenJDK 6 changesets would be credited to me which would look very odd! The only guidelines I'm aware of are: http://openjdk.java.net/guide/producingChangeset.html which don't cover this situation. Maybe it's worth raising on the OpenJDK discussion list? Did you backport these changes from scratch? I was a little confused, because the reference to the IcedTea backport patches made me think you might have used those. > We will respond to the other mail regardimg Deepak's finding in a > separate email. > > Thanks, > > Ivan > > > *From:* Andrew Hughes <mailto:gnu.and...@redhat.com> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 22:30 > > *To:* Ivan Krylov <mailto:i...@azulsystems.com> > > *Cc:* jdk6-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:jdk6-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Andrew, thank you. > > > Just pushed the changes. > > > BTW, icedtea patches 6650759-missing_inference.patch and > > > 6638712-wildcard_types.patch are now redundant. > > > > > > > In future, if you're backporting changes, can you please keep the original > > author and summary information? > > > > From: > > > > user: mcimadamore > > 6638712: Inference with wildcard types causes selection of > > inapplicable method > > Summary: Added global sanity check in order to make sure that return > > type inference does not violate bounds constraints > > Reviewed-by: jjg > > > > to: > > > > user: ikrylov > > OPENJDK6-34: OpenJDK6-b31 backport of JDK-6638712 to openjdk6 > > Summary: Original bug synopsis-Inference of formal type parameter > > (unused in formal parameters) is not performed > > Reviewed-by: aph > > Contributed-by: nikgor <niko...@azulsystems.com> > > > > As this is a backport, there's no reason to allocate an OPENJDK6 bug > > to it. > > The original information could have been used, perhaps with the > > additional reviewer. > > Now it looks like Azul wrote this patch, which I don't believe is the > > case. > > > > > Also, the following bugs may be closed OPENJDK6-32,33,34,35. I would > > > close those myself but I do not have the required permissions. > > > > Done. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ivan > > > > > > On 23/06/2014 17:09, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > On 06/23/2014 02:05 PM, Ivan Krylov wrote: > > > >> The main motivation for this fix was exactly to fix building > > JBoss EAP > > > >> certification bundle (for 6.2.0). > > > >> This fix exists in IcedTea (6650759-missing_inference.patch) but for > > > >> whatever reason was never promoted to openjdk6. > > > > Ah, OK. That's fine, then. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andrew :) > > > > Free Java Software Engineer > > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > > > PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) > > Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07 > > > > > > -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
