On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:43:49 GMT, Alisen Chung wrote:
> redo of 8280400
Since this is identical to the original fix, I would expect the same Tier2 test
failure as reported in
[JDK-8283804](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8283804).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/p
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:20:00 GMT, Alisen Chung wrote:
> This reverts commit c0aecd15ae8d7abf37901f785fccaff2317c3b23.
I confirm that this is an exact backout of
[JDK-8280400](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280400).
-
Marked as reviewed by kcr (Author).
PR: https://git.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 17:12:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> TheShermanTanker is not the author of this PR, he's just assisting the author
> by creating the JBS issue.
Ah, that explains it then.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7268
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 14:39:31 GMT, Matteo Baccan wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have reviewed the code for removing double semicolons at the end of lines
>
> all the best
> matteo
But as the JBS title and PR title now match, this is a moot point.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/726
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 16:40:15 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
> What problem are you having editing the PR header? You should be able to do
> so as the author of the PR
Exactly. You should see an "Edit" button near the right edge of the PR title.
See the attached image:
![PR-title](https://user-imag
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:54:08 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review a very simple change to the support for the synthesized method
> descriptions in JavaFX.
>
> The change is just to change the order of words in generated descriptions
> from
> _the property `NAME`_
> to
> _the `
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 03:51:23 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review a relatively simple update to have doclnt check for empty
> "descriptions" -- the body of a doc comment, before the block tags.
>
> It is already the case that doclint checks for missing/empty descriptions in
> block tag
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:38:14 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review a medium-size update to the support for JavaFX properties in
> the Standard Doclet.
>
> A JavaFX property is typically defined by a group of up to 4 elements:
> * an optional field, which is typically private
> * a no-arg
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 19:17:04 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review a simple change to the code for generating docs for JavaFX
> properties, in order to suppress an inappropriate
> "missing comment" warning.
>
> The change is to use `hasDocCommentTree` instead of `getDocCommentTree`.
>
>
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 19:17:04 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review a simple change to the code for generating docs for JavaFX
> properties, in order to suppress an inappropriate
> "missing comment" warning.
>
> The change is to use `hasDocCommentTree` instead of `getDocCommentTree`.
>
>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:21:28 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The code in java.base was updated to use String::isEmpty in JDK 12
>> (JDK-8215281). There was follow-up in JDK 13 to do
>> the same in the java.desktop module (JDK-8223237). Changing the remaining
>> usages make sense although I see that
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 07:57:48 GMT, Dmitriy Dumanskiy
wrote:
>> @doom369 jcheck requires an associated issue
>
> @mrserb hello. Thanks for the review. Any further actions required from me?
Before this Enhancement can be formally reviewed, you will need a JBS bug ID.
If you are already working wit
Hi Kumar,
I am in the process of fixing up JavaFX to build with JDK 9 as a boot
jdk, and I ran into an NPE in the doclet, that may be related to your
change. I'll file a bug in JBS, but wanted to give you a heads-up.
-- Kevin
Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello everyone,
The JEP 221 [1] was in
13 matches
Mail list logo
