On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:30:38 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> The time to get JDK 19 underway draws nigh, please review this usual set of
>> start-of-release updates, including CSRs for the javac and javax.lang.model
>> updates:
>>
>> JDK-8277512: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_19
>>
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:17:44 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I looked at all the non-sym file changes. Only one potential issue spotted.
>
> Thanks, David
*sigh* Yep; cut and paste error -- corrected in next push. Well spotted!
Thanks David
-
PR:
> The time to get JDK 19 underway draws nigh, please review this usual set of
> start-of-release updates, including CSRs for the javac and javax.lang.model
> updates:
>
> JDK-8277512: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_19
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8277512
>
> JDK-8277514: Add source 19
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:15:51 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> The time to get JDK 19 underway draws nigh, please review this usual set of
> start-of-release updates, including CSRs for the javac and javax.lang.model
> updates:
>
> JDK-8277512: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_19
>
The time to get JDK 19 underway draws nigh, please review this usual set of
start-of-release updates, including CSRs for the javac and javax.lang.model
updates:
JDK-8277512: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_19
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8277512
JDK-8277514: Add source 19 and target 19
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:52:36 GMT, Andrew Leonard wrote:
> Add a new --source-date (epoch milliseconds) option to jar and
> jmod to allow specification of time to use for created/updated jar/jmod
> entries. This then allows the ability to make the content deterministic.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 03:02:53 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Hello Mandy,
> With this change the `getMessage` may get passed an empty string, so it would
> end up printing something like `Can not get ... field on`. Do you
> think the `getMessage` implementation should be tweaked not to print the
While I'm the first to admit that the design of annotations incorporated
a great deal of optimism about its sufficiency, I think the
return-on-complexity for such things is not good enough to warrant
working on this.
Now I was thinking: wouldn't it be nice to be able to define a custom
Hi all,
I've been writing a few annotations lately that have one required
attribute and some optional ones. That leaves me with three options:
1) Use value() for the required attribute. That becomes ugly when the
optional attributes are given though.
2) Make developers write the attribute
Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to add more diagnostics
when a failure occurs in the jlink tool during the jpackage tests?
As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8277507, so far 3 failures
have been reported in jpackage tests (across different test cases)
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:47:40 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> The `jdk.internal.ValueBased` annotation was incorrectly applied to
>> subclasses of java.util.AbstractMap.
>> [ValueBased](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/doc-files/ValueBased.html)
>> requires that
11 matches
Mail list logo
