Okay, that makes sense to me! Thank you for your explanations Claes and
Stuart.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
On 5 October 2016 at 01:57, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Right, the main point of the comment is to tell the reader the constructor
> isn't superfluous, to prevent it from being cleaned up and accide
Right, the main point of the comment is to tell the reader the constructor isn't
superfluous, to prevent it from being cleaned up and accidentally causing a
regression. Full history can reside in the commit comment, the bug database, and
in these email logs.
I'd put in a link to a bug only whe
Hi Jonathan,
the aim isn't to add an in-depth explanation to the code about exactly
the circumstance that led to this constructor and comment being added,
but to put a clear message that it was simply, in fact, deliberate, so
even the proposed comment might be going further than strictly necessar
The explanation which Stuart gives for this change in
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 seems to describe why this
constructor is needed much better than the comment itself does. So I wonder
if it's worth adding the link to the bug report in the comment. E.g.
// prevent generation o
On 10/4/16 3:55 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/
OK.
Thanks for the speedy review! :-)
Thanks for looking at this. The shorter text in the
> On 4 Oct 2016, at 11:55, Claes Redestad wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/
+1
-Chris.
On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/
OK.
Thanks for the speedy review! :-)
/Claes
On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/
OK.
-Aleksey
