On 6/10/2015 6:13 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2015-06-10 11:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Generally looks good - a few comments/queries below.
In general, I believe most issues you found are valid. :-) However, as
I said before in this thread, I'd like to see them resolved in the
On 2015-06-11 06:52, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On 10/06/2015 10:13 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2015-06-10 11:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Generally looks good - a few comments/queries below.
In general, I believe most issues you found are valid. :-) However, as I
said before
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2015-06-10 15:44, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
General comment: Not all copyright years were updated.
I realize I missed that part of the revi
Hi Magnus,
On 10/06/2015 10:13 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2015-06-10 11:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Generally looks good - a few comments/queries below.
In general, I believe most issues you found are valid. :-) However, as I
said before in this thread, I'd like to see them reso
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
General comment: Not all copyright years were updated.
I realize I missed that part of the review. :-(
I have now updated the copyright years. Here's a delta revi
Hi Magnus,
Generally looks good - a few comments/queries below.
On 9/06/2015 11:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Here's an updated webrev, which fixes the typos that were pointed out by
reviewers:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.02/
common/autoconf/ve
On 2015-06-10 11:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Generally looks good - a few comments/queries below.
In general, I believe most issues you found are valid. :-) However, as I
said before in this thread, I'd like to see them resolved in the needed
follow-up patches. The source code changes
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2015-06-09 15:52, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Here's an updated webrev, which fixes the typos that were pointed out
by reviewers:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.02/
And here's a (much simpler) delta webrev which shows just these
On 6/8/2015 9:57 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
On 9.6.2015 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
Here's an updated webrev, which fixes the typos that were pointed out by
reviewers:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.02/
And here's a (much simpler) delta webrev which shows just these changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-
On 2015-06-09 15:26, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2015-06-09 15:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
new L171: case "9":
Should this logic support both versi
On 2015-06-09 15:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
new L171: case "9":
Should this logic support both versions? Will dropping
"1.9" here preven
On 6/9/15 7:12 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your thorough review!
This was my (failing) attempt at a "fast pass" review... :-)
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
Gener
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your thorough review!
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
General comment: Not all copyright years were updated.
General comment: It looks like support for the 'patch' value i
On 9.6.2015 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
new L171: case "9":
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
General comment: Not all copyright years were updated.
General comment: It looks like support for the 'patch' value is not
completely
implemented through all the Makefiles. I didn't audit for this, but
it's
On 08/06/2015 13:37, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
:
The API functions in Version.java and jvm.h are not finished. The specification
in the JEP talks about a java.util.Version, that I presume will replace the
sun.misc.Version, and that will fully implement an API to access the version
string and
+1 on Nashorn changes.
-Sundar
On Monday 08 June 2015 06:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
8 jun 2015 kl. 11:34 skrev Alan Bateman :
On 05/06/2015 15:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
This review request covers the main part of the work for JEP-223, the new version string format
[1]. Basically,
> 8 jun 2015 kl. 11:34 skrev Alan Bateman :
>
>> On 05/06/2015 15:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> This review request covers the main part of the work for JEP-223, the new
>> version string format [1]. Basically, we'll call this release Java "9",
>> instead of Java "1.9.0".
>>
>> This patch i
On 05/06/2015 15:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
This review request covers the main part of the work for JEP-223, the
new version string format [1]. Basically, we'll call this release Java
"9", instead of Java "1.9.0".
This patch is a folding of all work that has been done so far in the
branch
Hello,
Looks pretty good. Found some typos:
jdk_util.c:
99: specia_update_version
jdk-version.m4:
31: assing
124, 132: --with--version-pre-base has a dash too many? I see this
pattern consistently used though, am I missing something?
/Erik
On 2015-06-05 16:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Thi
This review request covers the main part of the work for JEP-223, the
new version string format [1]. Basically, we'll call this release Java
"9", instead of Java "1.9.0".
This patch is a folding of all work that has been done so far in the
branch JEP-223-branch in jdk9/sandbox. As you can see,
22 matches
Mail list logo
