Hmm. That would seem to be more consistent. I'll take another look and
likely file a follow-up bug since I had already pushed JDK-8231546 when
I saw this message.
Thanks for the careful review,
-Joe
On 9/26/2019 12:58 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
+1. Should the @serial javadoc tag be removed?
+1. Should the @serial javadoc tag be removed?
-Chris.
> On 26 Sep 2019, at 19:27, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Looks fine, Joe
>
>> On 9/26/19 1:51 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Another part of the cleanup of library serialization usage ahead of
>> augmented javac -Xlint warnings
Looks fine, Joe
On 9/26/19 1:51 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Another part of the cleanup of library serialization usage ahead of
augmented javac -Xlint warnings (JDK-8160675), the non-serializable
instance fields of serializable types in the java.prefs module should
have their serial
Hello,
Another part of the cleanup of library serialization usage ahead of
augmented javac -Xlint warnings (JDK-8160675), the non-serializable
instance fields of serializable types in the java.prefs module should
have their serial warnings suppressed. The analogous issue in core libs
is
