On 04/12/2018 08:23 PM, joe darcy wrote:
> I've manually created a CSR for this issue and linked it in to the backport;
> HTH,
Thank you Joe!
-Aleksey
I've manually created a CSR for this issue and linked it in to the
backport; HTH,
-Joe
On 4/12/2018 11:15 AM, joe darcy wrote:
On 4/12/2018 11:11 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 04/12/2018 07:43 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Sorry to be the bearer of more bureaucratic news i just found out we
On 4/12/2018 11:11 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 04/12/2018 07:43 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Sorry to be the bearer of more bureaucratic news i just found out we require a
CSR for 10 as
well… which means you need to explicitly create a back port issue for 10 and
hook the CSR for 10
to that
On 04/12/2018 07:43 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Sorry to be the bearer of more bureaucratic news i just found out we require
> a CSR for 10 as
> well… which means you need to explicitly create a back port issue for 10 and
> hook the CSR for 10
> to that (there may be some small consolation that the
Hi Aleksey,
Sorry to be the bearer of more bureaucratic news i just found out we require a
CSR for 10 as well… which means you need to explicitly create a back port issue
for 10 and hook the CSR for 10 to that (there may be some small consolation
that the CSR for 11 can be mostly copied
Thanks Mandy!
I added the comments to the JBS issue, hoping that would be enough to get the
backport moving.
-Aleksey
On 04/12/2018 12:24 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> I was on vacation last week. Paul - thanks for submitting CSR for
> JDK-8194554 for the resulting
> behavioral change.
>
> This
I was on vacation last week. Paul - thanks for submitting CSR for
JDK-8194554 for the resulting behavioral change.
This backport looks good to me.
Thanks
Mandy
On 4/5/18 11:33 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Hi,
Please review this jdk10 backport.
Original JDK 11 bug:
On 04/10/2018 06:40 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Here we go:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201371
>
> Kindly requesting a reviewer.
Not sure if that counts for CSR, but added myself as Reviewer there.
-Aleksey
> On Apr 10, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2018 08:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 09/04/2018 18:58, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> I am supportive of this change (the risk to impacting order-dependent
>>> stateful MH filter code is
>>> smaller than the
On 04/10/2018 08:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 18:58, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> I am supportive of this change (the risk to impacting order-dependent
>> stateful MH filter code is
>> smaller than the risk of hitting a string concatenation bug). (We erred on
>> the side of this being
>>
On 09/04/2018 18:58, Paul Sandoz wrote:
I am supportive of this change (the risk to impacting order-dependent stateful
MH filter code is smaller than the risk of hitting a string concatenation bug).
(We erred on the side of this being a bug and not being a spec change given the
pseudo-code in
Ping.
-Aleksey
On 04/05/2018 05:33 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review this jdk10 backport.
>
> Original JDK 11 bug:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194554
>
> Original JDK 11 fix:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/050352ed64d5
>
> Please note the
12 matches
Mail list logo