Hi Andrew,
Me and my colleagues have a consensus that the patch is important to us -
we are responsible for introducing a regression into OpenJDK 6 (breaking
Apache Flume 1.5.0 compilation), and so we have to fix it. We have already
included this patch into our OpenJDK 6 -based products, and now we are
interested in upstreaming it to OpenJDK 6 itself to minimize the difference
in codebase.
Thanks,
Nikolay
On 10.12.2014 19:56, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 12/10/2014 04:32 PM, Nikolay Gorshkov wrote:
I see your point that we chose a risky way and remember discussions
around
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2010-December/002195.html
that we had in the past when the fix for OPENJDK6-35 was in review.
Well, my opinion is that this risk was taken when we decided to integrate
OPENJDK6-35. Unfortunately, we have consequences, and now we need to deal
with them. Luckily, the problem is known and resolved by a simple fix.
We have verified it by all available means and currently are not aware of
any other regressions. In my opinion, this approach (moving forward, fixing
regressions) is more preferable than moving to pre- JDK-6650759 state where
we had known incompatibilities.
I admit that you're probably right, but I still need an answer to my
question about how important this patch is.
Andrew.
