Hello,
Responding to some of code review feedback from Ulf about the unsigned
API work, I've taken a pass at purging
code'#92;u0030'/code
from the jdk repo's javadoc and replacing it with
{@code '\u005Cu0030'}
since {@code} is generally preferable.
Webrev with these changes and other
Am 23.01.2012 11:33, schrieb Alan Bateman:
On 23/01/2012 08:23, Joe Darcy wrote:
With these changes, the javadoc builds runs without additional warnings and a specdiff against a
reference copy of the javadoc shows no unexpected changes.
I'm wondering because of /code.../code error, Alan
On 01/23/2012 02:33 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 23/01/2012 08:23, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Responding to some of code review feedback from Ulf about the
unsigned API work, I've taken a pass at purging
code'#92;u0030'/code
from the jdk repo's javadoc and replacing it with
{@code
On 01/23/2012 05:11 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 23.01.2012 11:33, schrieb Alan Bateman:
On 23/01/2012 08:23, Joe Darcy wrote:
With these changes, the javadoc builds runs without additional
warnings and a specdiff against a reference copy of the javadoc
shows no unexpected changes.
I'm wondering
Am 23.01.2012 18:53, schrieb Joe Darcy:
Well, there is the make/scripts directory in the the top-level JDK repository
forest.
Could you please publish your script there? (maybe via this patch)
Joe, thanks for catching my change proposal.
Would like to see me as contributor :-)
I meant
On 01/23/2012 10:29 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 23.01.2012 18:53, schrieb Joe Darcy:
Well, there is the make/scripts directory in the the top-level JDK
repository forest.
Could you please publish your script there? (maybe via this patch)
I just used some semi-automated search and replace in
On 23/01/2012 17:41, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hi Alan,
Not sure what happened in RandomAccessFile; specdiff caught various
problems with earlier versions of the work before I send the webrev
out for review. In any case, thanks for the catching the problem; an
updated webrev with a corrected (but
