Phil,
Yes - people "should" cc relevant parties when such backports are taking
place. Not mandatory though. Rule 5 in code review guidelines :
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/codereview.html
It's probably a good time to remind OpenJDK 7u contributors to carry out
such checks where applicable.
there's basically no justification of the need for a backport
and I heartily disapprove of backporting 8004316
I can't understand why you're against such a backport. It looks like
printing functionality is broken on some OSes without this fix. Given
that Jayashree backported this fix, I hope she can take responsibility
for any potential regressions that may be encountered.
Regards,
Sean.
On 08/01/2013 17:38, Phil Race wrote:
I believe the process on requesting a backport is that the 8 code
approvers
need to be CC'd and that the 7 release managers should be enforcing this.
In this email there's basically no justification of the need for a
backport
and I heartily disapprove of backporting 8004316. Its not that important
and minimally should bake a long time in 8. We do not have resources
in 7 to
deal with regressions.
-phil.
On 1/7/2013 9:03 AM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
Approved.
On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:43 PM, jayashree viswanathan
<jvisw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi,
Would like to get approval for back-porting the fix for 8004316, on
JDK 7 . The patch is same as JDK 8
*JDK 7 changeset*
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jviswana/8004316/
*Mail Thread*
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-December/002900.html
*JDK 8 bug*
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004316
*JDK8 changeset*
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/e8b54ae97344
Thanks and Regards,
Jayashree Viswanathan
