I've thought about this at length, and I've decided to leave the patch in. While I shouldn't have approved it after it was rejected the first time around, it is in IcedTea 6, and almost everybody who uses OpenJDK 6 gets it via IcedTea, so it makes little difference to any of our users whether this patch is in OpenJDK 6 or not.
I'm still rather curious about why this patch was accepted into IcedTea 6 but rejected by OpenJDK, but I don't suppose it really matters. Andrew. On 01/07/14 11:48, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 07/01/2014 11:15 AM, Nikolay Gorshkov wrote: >> From another side, we did extensive testing of the build of >> {OpenJDK 6 + 6650759 backport} using all JDK 6 tests available >> to us, both general and javac specific. We didn't find any >> single failure caused by the backport. So, in practice we >> don't see any indication of regressions or incompatibilities >> caused by the backport, and such, honestly, we see no reason >> for backing out the backport. >> >> Please, let us know if you are aware of a test suite that >> shows regressions or any kind of problems introduced by >> this changeset. > > I'm not at all sure that this is a sound argument. If there was > a test that showed regressions, you surely would have been told > about it already. > > I don't know that this patch is bad; I don't know that is is good. > I do know that it was rejected. > > On the other hand, it was accepted for IcedTea. I don't know why > it was accepted; maybe that was before the patch was rejected > upstream. > > Andrew Hughes, do you know? > > Andrew. >