Vote: yes
-Joe
Alan Bateman wrote:
I hereby nominate Kurchi Subhra Hazra to jdk7u Committer.
Kurchi has committer role in the jdk8 project but only author role on
jdk7u.
The following queries match most of her recent activity:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/log?rev=khazra
http://
Hello,
Please consider for 7u10 a backport of the fix for
7181320: javac NullPointerException for switch labels with cast to
String expressions
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7181320
from JDK 8:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/464f52f59f7d
The es
Hello,
Please consider for 7u10 a backport of the fix for
7178324: Crash when compiling for(i : x) try(AutoCloseable x = ...) {}
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7178324
from JDK 8:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/f071cd32d297
With the fix, inside the co
Hello,
Catching up on email, I'm responding to this thread with my ccc chairman
hat on. The ccc is (currently) an Oracle-internal process which reviews
API and other interfaces changes of the JDK. The ccc is alluded to in
the OpenJDK Developers' Guide [1] and among the ccc's roles is looking
Hello,
While it is certainly true in the limit that effort on JDK 7 update
should be reduced to focus on JDK 8 and other future releases, my own
estimation is that we are still in the phase of the lifetime of JDK 7
train where it is sensible and prudent to accept proactive fixes into
the rele
On 1/15/2013 3:13 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
On 1/8/2013 10:56 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Phil,
Yes - people "should" cc relevant parties when such backports are taking
place. Not mandatory though. Rule 5 in code review guidelines :
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/codereview.html
It's probab
Hello,
Please review the patch below for inclusion into 7u14. Some background
to explain what is going on. The issue 7131459 [1] has already been
fixed in JDK 8 to address some long-standing numerical irregularities in
certain double -> string conversions:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jd
On 04/29/2013 08:36 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Mikhail,
This is a new method you're proposing to introduce in a public API for
an update release. Granted, it's an override.
cc'ing Joe Darcy here to confirm that it's OK and that it doesn't
introduce a source/binary com
Hello,
I'd like to backport the changes for
8012044 - Give more information about self-suppression from
Throwable.addSuppressed
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8012044
from JDK 8 to the 7 update train. In JDK 8, the changeset is at
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/re
Hello Alexey,
On 6/18/2013 12:49 AM, alexey zhebel wrote:
We are moving to a new process for generating man pages. I checked in
the two that changed for 7u40 (java and jcmd):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~azhebel/8016767/
Please review.
Note that the copyright/license information format was app
On 07/19/2013 03:39 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi Alexey,
The new man pages are a big improvement over the previous ones.
There are still a number of formatting issues that need to be
corrected, but these can be postponed until later, as I understand the
difficulties of trying to fix up the tool
Changeset: 08c11954963e
Author:darcy
Date: 2015-01-08 11:16 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/langtools/rev/08c11954963e
8068639: Make certain annotation classfile warnings opt-in
Reviewed-by: jjg
! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/jvm/ClassReader.java
! te
Hello.
I hereby request approval to backport a trio of signature parsing fixes
from JDK 8 to 7 update:
6476261: (reflect) GenericSignatureFormatError When signature
includes nested inner classes
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6476261
6832374: (reflect) malformed
Dalibor Topic wrote:
On 9/1/11 1:11 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello.
I hereby request approval to backport a trio of signature parsing fixes from
JDK 8 to 7 update:
6476261: (reflect) GenericSignatureFormatError When signature includes
nested inner classes
http://bugs.sun.com
Changeset: 370e70f40ea7
Author:darcy
Date: 2011-09-02 12:23 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk/rev/370e70f40ea7
6476261: (reflect) GenericSignatureFormatError When signature includes nested
inner classes
6832374: (reflect) malformed signature can cause parser
Hello.
For your consideration, I submit a request to backport from JDK 8 the
fix for
7075098: Remove unused fdlibm files
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7075098
Changeset:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/b9fffbe98230
The patch applies cleanly to 7
Changeset: b02f83934216
Author:darcy
Date: 2011-09-04 09:43 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk/rev/b02f83934216
7075098: Remove unused fdlibm files
Reviewed-by: alanb, mduigou
! make/java/fdlibm/FILES_c.gmk
! src/share/native/java/lang/fdlibm/include/fdlibm.h
David Holmes wrote:
Most fixes to 7u must go to 8 first. I assume at least part of the
reason for this is to have fixes "bake" in 8 before coming down into
7u. But I'm seeing a lot of pushes to 8 followed (sometimes within
minutes) by requests to push to 7u. I know there are various schedules
Hi Kumar,
Looks fine. In test/tools/launcher/Test7029048.java, I suggest rephrasing
289 System.out.println("Note: not applicable on Windows and
MacOSX");
as "Note: applicable on neither Windows nor MacOSX".
-Joe
On 1/5/2012 8:49 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi,
Please approv
On 01/18/2012 07:02 AM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
On 1/18/2012 4:33 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Was a specification (ccc) filed for these flags ? Will this be
documented in the help
section ? though X flags are unsupported, in the past we have
documented them, both
in the man pages as well as "java
Launcher changes looks good,
-Joe
On 01/21/2012 10:05 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Kelly et. al.,
I have beautified/fixed the Makefiles addressing Kellys' comments below:
1. Indented the Makefiles correctly.
2. Annotated with more trailing comments to the if/else/endif clauses
3. Removed
21 matches
Mail list logo
