Hi Pete,
Sorry all this was happening in the wee hours for me :)
On 9/04/2015 3:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
How's this?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03
Seems like a good temporary fix.
To answer your earlier question to my comment, the $60K question is
whether this
Thanks Sean,
On 4/8/15 1:39 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> Pete,
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html
> Rule 1. What are your plans for JDK 9 ? Is that family affected ? If
> not - add '9-na' label to bug report.
There have been no issues with 9 so I added 9-na.
>
> Rule 4. Approv
Hi Pete,
Sean said 'your fix will go via 8u-dev' - is this the case?
Or are we planning on pushing your changes to 8u Master directly (after
proper build/test)?
Do you have a forest on nfs? (from where I can pull/clone your fixes)?
- Lana
On 04/08/2015 11:08 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
I confi
Phil will do the push. I assume it needs to go to 8u-dev.
On 4/8/15 1:38 PM, Lana Steuck wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> Sean said 'your fix will go via 8u-dev' - is this the case?
>
> Or are we planning on pushing your changes to 8u Master directly
> (after proper build/test)?
>
> Do you have a forest on
Pete,
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html
Rule 1. What are your plans for JDK 9 ? Is that family affected ? If not
- add '9-na' label to bug report.
Rule 4. Approval requests should be carried out on jdk8u-dev mailing list.
regards,
Sean.
On 08/04/2015 19:14, Pete Brunet
I confirmed the javadoc is gone, and make docs did not fail.
I have yet to submit the JPRT job.
Sean/Winston do you want to wait for the 7 JPRT jobs to finish before
you approve the push?
Phil will have to do the push; my committer status is pending.
Pete
On 4/8/15 1:00 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>
+1
Mandy
On 4/8/2015 11:00 AM, Phil Race wrote:
That looks good to me.
-phil.
On 4/8/2015 10:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
How's this?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03
On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up th
resending - too many on To:/Cc:
On 4/8/15 1:08 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> I confirmed the javadoc is gone, and make docs did not fail.
>
> I have yet to submit the JPRT job.
>
> Sean/Winston do you want to wait for the 7 JPRT jobs to finish before
> you approve the push?
>
> Phil will have to do the
That looks good to me.
-phil.
On 4/8/2015 10:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
How's this?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03
On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc
build issue.
You can verify the result f
How's this?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03
On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc
> build issue.
>
> You can verify the result from make docs that there is no javadoc
> generated for this package o
I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc
build issue.
You can verify the result from make docs that there is no javadoc
generated for this package on windows build.
Mandy
On 4/8/2015 10:29 AM, Phil Race wrote:
Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ?
On 4/8/15 12:29 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ?
>
> 1215 ALL_OTHER_TARGETS += jaccessdocs
>
> .. and add a comment as to why ?
I'm not familiar with this make file so I took the straightforward
approach.
If you are confident that will work I'll redo the
Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ?
1215 ALL_OTHER_TARGETS += jaccessdocs
.. and add a comment as to why ?
-phil.
On 04/08/2015 10:25 AM, Pete Brunet wrote:
Here is an updated patch.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.02/
It simply removes the com.sun.jav
Here is an updated patch.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.02/
It simply removes the com.sun.java.accessibility.util part of the
javadoc generation.
How to better deal with the javadoc generation can be left to later.
Please let me know if this patch meets with your approv
On 4/8/15 1:22 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I think Erik's suggestion in the bug report is more appropriate. If
> this is only a source bundle issue then the build instructions for
> javadoc should either be Windows specific, or else check for source
> existence.
David, Considering that th
Hi Mandy, com.sun.java.accessibility.util can be used on other
platforms. com.sun.java.accessibility is Win only. -Pete
On 4/8/15 1:06 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This API is only available on windows but not other platforms. I
> think src/windows/classes is the right location.
>
> Mandy
>
> On 4/
Pete,
I think Erik's suggestion in the bug report is more appropriate. If this
is only a source bundle issue then the build instructions for javadoc
should either be Windows specific, or else check for source existence.
David
On 8/04/2015 3:51 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
Please review/approve th
This API is only available on windows but not other platforms. I think
src/windows/classes is the right location.
Mandy
On 4/7/2015 10:51 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
Please review/approve the following patch.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.01/
The recent push for JDK-807
Please review/approve the following patch.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.01/
The recent push for JDK-8076182 caused a build break, i.e. a problem for
the creation of the Javadoc in the environment used by the nightly
build. This was because a newly opened package
com.su
19 matches
Mail list logo
