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.
>
