Hi,
Could I please have a review of this fix.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8075658
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8075658/webrev.00
Thanks,
Katja
Hi Katja,
Looks ok to me too.
It has been a relatively manual process and I'm not aware of a
mechanism how to sync test-key-bug. What I can do is to mark bugs I
went through with for example 'key-intermittent' label to distinguish
them form the new ones.
That's another additional label,
Jaroslav,
Thank you for the review!
It has been a relatively manual process and I'm not aware of a mechanism
how to sync test-key-bug. What I can do is to mark bugs I went through
with for example 'key-intermittent' label to distinguish them form the
new ones.
Are there other suggestions?
Hi Sherman,
On 07/15/2015 09:10 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
Hi,
Please help review the change for JDK-8130914.
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130914
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8130914/
This is a regression triggered by
On 7/17/15 8:45 AM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 7/17/15 1:04 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Sherman,
On 07/15/2015 09:10 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
Hi,
Please help review the change for JDK-8130914.
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130914
webrev:
On 7/17/15 1:04 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Sherman,
On 07/15/2015 09:10 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
Hi,
Please help review the change for JDK-8130914.
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130914
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8130914/
This is a regression triggered by
Hello,
Yes, my general guidance is to make sure flaky tests are marked as
intermittent in the test itself. This lets someone running the test
easily check if the test is known to be unreliable *in that state of the
sources*.
There is a upfront overhead to collecting information about the
IMHO, this doesn't warrant any special wording -- if someone hits this, I
think it's fairly evident what the issue is. You can get the same problem
with adding an ArrayList to itself and calling hashCode().
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Krystal Mok rednaxel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Hi Vitaly,
I can buy that argument. It wasn't hard for me to recognize it when I saw
it in real world.
But apparently whoever asked me about it couldn't wrap his head around it
to understand why...
Maybe it's a case for a Pitfalls book instead of for JavaDocs.
Thanks,
Kris
On Friday, July 17,
Hi,
I worked on refactoring the native ProcessHandleImpl implementation to
enable more code sharing and make it easier to add support for new
platforms (e.g. AIX) and I think I had a pretty nice version running. But
unfortunately I've just realized that the recent changes to
ProcessHandleImpl
Hi everyone,
I'm sure somebody has seen this stack overflow before. My question is: is
it expected (which should be documented to warn people not to do this), or
is it considered a bug (which should be fixed)?
Example:
https://gist.github.com/rednaxelafx/930f8979473185cfc0a0
import java.util.*;
Hi Louis,
hanks! I thought I had seen it somewhere but I couldn't recall where.
That's exactly what I need to answer the guys who asked me for a doc
reference.
Thanks,
Kris
On Friday, July 17, 2015, Louis Wasserman lowas...@google.com wrote:
The Javadoc of Map already specifies:
Note:
Thanks Mandy and Magnus for looking into the patch, and feedbacks from Kumar
Srinivasan and Michel Trudeau.
We have an updated version to be reviewed at,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8027634/v2/webrev/
This version changes the syntax a little bit as following, but pretty much
13 matches
Mail list logo