* Jacob Wisor <gi...@gmx.de> [2015-03-09 13:14]: > Hello Omair, > > Am 09.03.2015 um 15:19 schrieb Omair Majid: > >* Jacob Wisor <gi...@gmx.de> [2015-03-06 09:49]: > >>Anyways, please review this patch. > > > >Hi Jacob, > > > >Please familiarize yourself with how fixes are added to older versions > >of OpenJDK: > >http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html > > > >In other words, please rebase this patch against jdk9 and get it > >committed there first. Then you can start looking into backports. > > Okay, thank you for the heads up. I will do take a look into committing to > JDK 9 first. However, I was hesitant to do so because it has an utterly > different structure than previous JDKs and it looks like a lot of work to > get through it.
Yeah, the paths have changed. But mostly, it's just the addition of the module prefix in the path. So jdk/src/share/classes/sun/tools/jar/Main.java becomes jdk/src/jdk.dev/share/classes/sun/tools/jar/Main.java There's some tools to help with that: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/docs/portingScript.html > If parsing is /really/ an issue then the > jar tool should have an additional option to print date and time in ISO > format and/or people should migrate their reliant software to explicitly set > the locale they are most comfortable with parsing. I think the concern is compatibility change within a release. If I am using a version of jdk8u and my (broken) scripts parses the output of the jar tool, fixing this will break my script. Is breaking existing users' setups worth fixing this? Perhaps it will be a more acceptable change for a new jdk version? Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
