[jfx11u] Integrated: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:27:00 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Clean backport of update to `CONTRIBUTING.md` to clarify that clean backports > of approved fixes can be integrated without further review. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 896089eb Author:Kevin Rushfort

[jfx11u] Integrated: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases

Clean backport of update to `CONTRIBUTING.md` to clarify that clean backports of approved fixes can be integrated without further review. - Commit messages: - 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net

[jfx17u] Integrated: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 22:05:26 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update > release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion > into the release. This pull request has now been integrated.

Re: [jfx17u] RFR: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases [v2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:06:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update >> release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion >> into the release. > > Kevin Rushforth has

Re: [jfx17u] RFR: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases [v2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:06:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update >> release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion >> into the release. > > Kevin Rushforth has

Re: [jfx17u] RFR: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases [v2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:06:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update >> release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion >> into the release. > > Kevin Rushforth has

Re: [jfx17u] RFR: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases [v2]

> Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update > release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion > into the release. Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last

[jfx17u] RFR: 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases

Added a paragraph indicating that a review of a clean backport to an update release is optional, if the bug in question has been approved for inclusion into the release. - Commit messages: - 8273732: Clarify review policies for clean backports in JavaFX update releases Changes

Re: Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

u mean. If you pull from the remote that the > PR > > is on and checkout the remote branch, is it not good enough for a review? > > > > yeah, that's what I meant - without having been too clear - with > fork-the-fork :) What I had hoped for was some hidden eclipse magic to > di

Re: Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

Zitat von Nir Lisker : I'm not really sure what you mean. If you pull from the remote that the PR is on and checkout the remote branch, is it not good enough for a review? yeah, that's what I meant - without having been too clear - with fork-the-fork :) What I had hoped for was some

Re: Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

I'm not really sure what you mean. If you pull from the remote that the PR is on and checkout the remote branch, is it not good enough for a review? On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 2:16 PM Jeanette Winzenburg wrote: > > when reviewing a PR with only a few files changed, I simply create a > loc

Re: Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

ahh .. yeah, that looks doable - had hoped to get away without installing git and frickle with commandlines ;) thanks Zitat von Kevin Rushforth : I do something like this: git fetch upstream pull/569/head:pr_569 Then you can checkout the "pr_569" branch. I typically will then merge

Re: Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

I do something like this: git fetch upstream pull/569/head:pr_569 Then you can checkout the "pr_569" branch. I typically will then merge in the current upstream/master to test. If you don't have an "upstream" remote you can instead: git fetch https://github.com/openjdk/jfx

Eclipse: any way to checkout a PR for review?

when reviewing a PR with only a few files changed, I simply create a local branch and c the changes (*cough, pretty sure there's a better way, but then that's the most simple ;). With changes to many files (like f.i. https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/569) that still would be doable,

Re: Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLL

This is waiting on me. I need to review the updated API docs and CSR test, and then create a draft CSR issue. -- Kevin On 5/23/2020 11:30 AM, Rony G Flatscher wrote: Hi Kevin, is there anything I need to do? What are the next steps I should look for? —-rony Rony G. Flatscher (mobil/e

Re: Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLL

hese tear down >>>>>>the FXML GUI). >>>>>> >>>>>> This WIP comes with proper test units as well. As per Kevin's suggestion >>>>>> a warning gets logged >>>>>> whenever a script cannot be compiled and the fa

Re: Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLL

he compilation by default >>>>> with a safe fallback to >>>>> evaluate the uncompiled script, if compilation (unexpectedly) fails. >>>>> >>>>> Again, any feedback, discussion welcome! >>>>> >>>>> ---rony

Re: Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLL

t.", it should have >>>> read "Make messages more terse." instead|.|| >>>> | >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17.04.2020 19:37, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >>>>> There is a new WIP at <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/187> which >&g

Re: Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLL

have a fallback solution in case a compilation is (unexpectedly) not successful, reverting to (interpretative) evaluation/execution of the script. In that version it is planned to have compilation on by default as in the case of a compilation failure there will be a safe backup solution. On

Next steps ? (Re: An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoade

or an entire >>> fxml file, "compile off", >>> alternating using "compile on and off", and alternating using "compile off >>> and on". This will test >>> all variants of applying the compile PI for all categories of scripts. >>

An attempt of a CSR draft ... (Re: A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engin

ply the compile PI to FXML files that are >> used in older JavaFX runtimes. >> >> P.P.S.: In the next days I will also add Kevin's idea in a separate version >> that will have a >> fallback solution in case a compilation is (unexpectedly) not successful, >> reverti

A new WIP (PR # 192) (Re: WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabe

a compilation is (unexpectedly) not successful, > reverting to > (interpretative) evaluation/execution of the script. In that version it is > planned to have > compilation on by default as in the case of a compilation failure there will > be a safe backup solution. > > > On 1

WIP version with PI compile (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

y. Go ahead with your proposal. I > would wait a bit to > create the CSR until the review is far enough along to know which direction > we intend to go. > > Unless there is a real concern about possible regressions if scripts are > compiled by default, I > think "enabled by

Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

Yes, I agree that enough time has gone by. Go ahead with your proposal. I would wait a bit to create the CSR until the review is far enough along to know which direction we intend to go. Unless there is a real concern about possible regressions if scripts are compiled by default, I think

Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

on and off throughout an FXML file.) ---rony On 04.04.2020 18:03, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On 03.04.2020 01:21, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> I see that you updated the PR and sent it for review. >> >> Before we formally review it in the PR, let's fi

Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

Hi Kevin, On 03.04.2020 01:21, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > I see that you updated the PR and sent it for review. > > Before we formally review it in the PR, let's finish the discussion as to > whether this is a useful > feature, and if so, what form this feature should take. &g

Re: Question ad CSR (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

Regarding the CSR, that's usually done after the enhancement is agreed upon in principle, and the review is far enough along that you are ready to write up the spec changes, new API, and/or new interfaces. Since you don't have direct JBS access you will need a sponsor to do that part for you

Question ad CSR (Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

e reason probably being that I cannot log on. Once I have the CSR text formulated (may take a little while) what should I do with it? ---rony On 03.04.2020 01:21, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Hi Rony, > > I see that you updated the PR and sent it for review. > > Before we formally r

Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

Hi Rony, I see that you updated the PR and sent it for review. Before we formally review it in the PR, let's finish the discussion as to whether this is a useful feature, and if so, what form this feature should take. From my point of view, this does seem like a useful feature. Would other

Re: A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

After merging master, applying some fixes and changing the title to reflect the change from WIP to a pull request I would kindly request a review of this pull request! Here the URL: <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/129>, title changed to: "8238080: FXMLLoader: if script engine

A WIP for JDK-8238080 for review/discussion (Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

Here is a WIP [1] implementation of [2]. The WIP is based on [3], which is currently in review, and has an appropriate test unit going with it as well, please review. There should be no compatibility issue with this implementation. Discussion: another solution could be to not compile by default

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

Hi Kevin, On 29.01.2020 13:24, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > The RFE you filed is now available here: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238080 thank you very much! Cheers ---rony P.S.: Have not received any automatic notification e-mail so far.

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

, Just searched all my e-mail folders and could not find it (looking for "FXMLLoader" in the subject of e-mails as the bug title contains that word) but could not find a matching e-mail for whatever reasons. but you can check this yourself by using the internal review ID as in [2]. If

Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

speed up the >> execution of script >> invocations, >> especially for scripts defined for event attributes in FXML >> elements (e.g. like >> onMouseMove) >> which may be repetitevly invoked and evaluated." >> >>    * System /OS/Java Runtime Information: >>    o "All systems." >> >> Received the internal review ID: "9063426" >> >> ---rony

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

mail folders and could not find it (looking for >> "FXMLLoader" in the subject >> of e-mails as the bug title contains that word) but could not find a >> matching e-mail for whatever >> reasons. >> >>> but you can check this yourself by using the

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

ut you can check this yourself by using the internal review ID as in [2]. If you’d like to contribute a fix, see [3]. Kind regards, Anthony [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234959 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234959> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/b

Re: "Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

ime Information: o "All systems." Received the internal review ID: "9063426" ---rony

"Internal review ID 9063426: "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel compile scripts"

nts (e.g. like onMouseMove) which may be repetitevly invoked and evaluated." * System /OS/Java Runtime Information: o "All systems." Received the internal review ID: "9063426" ---rony

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

On 23.01.2020 18:09, Anthony Vanelverdinghe wrote: > On 22/01/2020 18:52, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: ... cut ... >> Maybe one more question: there would be an optimization possible by >> compiling scripts for script >> engines that have the javax.script.Compilable interface implemented and use >>

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

of this conversion, Just searched all my e-mail folders and could not find it (looking for "FXMLLoader" in the subject of e-mails as the bug title contains that word) but could not find a matching e-mail for whatever reasons. but you can check this yourself by using the internal

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

all my e-mail folders and could not find it (looking for "FXMLLoader" in the subject of e-mails as the bug title contains that word) but could not find a matching e-mail for whatever reasons. > but you can check this yourself by using the internal review ID as in [2]. If > you’d l

RE: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

Hi Rony Your issue has been converted into a JDK issue, with your testcase attached [1]. Normally you should’ve received an e-mail at the time of this conversion, but you can check this yourself by using the internal review ID as in [2]. If you’d like to contribute a fix, see [3]. Kind

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

Last November I submitted an appropriate bug report and mailed the testcase on November 27th per Oracle's request without hearing anything to this date. Therefore I was wondering how long such an assessment usually takes place and what to do? (Maybe it "fell off the desk" due to the end-of-year

Re: "Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

As the zip-archive attachment got stripped, for a brief time the zip-archive can be fetched from . ---rony On 21.11.2019 15:29, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > On 15.11.2019 16:08, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >> On

"Internal review ID : 9062887" (Re: FXMLLoader: not supplying filename to script engine, not supplying event object as argument to script

On 15.11.2019 16:08, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > On 14.11.2019 22:57, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> On 11/14/2019 10:12 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >>> On 14.11.2019 16:34, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: On 13.11.2019 19:50, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > On 11/13/2019 9:42 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:

Request for review: JDK-8200224 - Multiple press event when JFXPanel gains focus.

Hello, Please review this fix for "Multiple press event when JFXPanel gains focus. Ticket: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087914 Pull Request: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/591 Florian Kirmaier from JPro <https://www.jpro.one>

Review Request: JDK-8221377: Fix mistakes in FX API docs

Hi Kevin, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221377 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8221377/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Review Request: JDK-8226850: Use an EnumSet for DirtyBits instead of an ordinal-based mask

Hi Kevin/Ambarish, Please review the simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226850 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8226850/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Review-Request for JDK-8227367

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8227367 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/518 <https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/168> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8227367 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209970

Review Request: JDK-8226912: Color, Point2D and Point3D's fields should be made final

Hi Kevin, Please review the simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226912 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8226912/webrev.00/ I planned this for 14, but it can go into 13 too. - Nir

Review Request: JDK-8226454: Point2D and Point3D should implement Interpolatable

Hi, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226454 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8226454/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Re: Review Request: JDK-8222258: Add exclusion scope for LightBase

I'll put it on my review queue. This will need a CSR. The proposed docs from the patch can be used as a starting point; they may need some minor updates, but are close enough to get started. -- Kevin On 5/3/2019 9:00 PM, Nir Lisker wrote: Hi Kevin / Ambarish, Please review the fix

Review Request: JDK-8222258: Add exclusion scope for LightBase

Hi Kevin / Ambarish, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-858 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/858/webrev.01/ Details are in the JBS issue. Thanks, Nir

Re: Review Request: JDK-8222066: Change JavaFX release version to 11.0.3 in 11-dev

+1 On 4/12/2019 1:22 AM, Johan Vos wrote: Hi Kevin, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8222066/webrev.00/ which fixes https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222066 - Johan

Review Request: JDK-8222066: Change JavaFX release version to 11.0.3 in 11-dev

Hi Kevin, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8222066/webrev.00/ which fixes https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222066 - Johan

Re: Review Request: JDK-8221708: Update Eclipse project files for non-modular projects

The patch requires an Eclipse developer to test it. Please kindly volunteer yourselves :) On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:28 PM Nir Lisker wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the fix for: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221708 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker

Review Request: JDK-8222073: Revert unintentional change to Dialog.java

Hi Kevin, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222073 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8222073/webrev.00/ Nir

Review Request: JDK-8221708: Update Eclipse project files for non-modular projects

Hi, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221708 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8221708/webrev.00/ Users of Eclipse are encourage to comment. Thanks, Nir

Review Request: JDK-8211014: Fix mistakes in FX API docs

Hi, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211014 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8211014/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Review Request: JDK-8217470: Upgrade Direct3D9 shader model from 2.0 to 3.0

Hi, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217470 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8217470/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Review-Request for JDK-8217333

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8217333 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/346 <https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/168> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217333 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209970

Review Request: JDK-8217270: Broken link to cssref.html in javafx.controls package docs

Hi, Please review the simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217270 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8217270/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Re: Review request for [JDK-8217259] release notes 11.0.2

Approved. -- Kevin On 1/16/2019 7:06 AM, Johan Vos wrote: Hi Kevin, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8217259/webrev.00/ which contains the release notes for 11.0.2 A layouted version of this is also available at https://github.com/johanvos/openjdk-jfx/blob/jfx-11/doc-files

Review request for [JDK-8217259] release notes 11.0.2

Hi Kevin, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8217259/webrev.00/ which contains the release notes for 11.0.2 A layouted version of this is also available at https://github.com/johanvos/openjdk-jfx/blob/jfx-11/doc-files/release-notes-11.0.2.md Thanks, - Johan

Review Request: JDK-8210361: Add images to docs for public API classes of controls

Hi, Please review the current state of the patch for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210361 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8210361/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Review request for JDK-8207957

Hi, I've made a PR here https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/289 regarding https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8207957 Anyone interested in the TableView (TreeTableView) can review and gives its opinion regarding the subject. Cheers, Sam'

Review-Request for JDK-8215629

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8209970 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/328 <https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/168> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215629 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209970

Review Request: make caching of native libs more robust

An easy to reproduce issue is to change permissions on the cache dir used by Javafx for storing native libs. If JavaFX can't write anymore to that cache dir, applications will fail since all pipelines use native code. The fix at https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/300 makes the

Re: Review request: Long scrolling on mac [JDK-8183399]

webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8183399/webrev.00/ On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM Johan Vos wrote: > Please review the fix for issue > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183399 ( > https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/issues/38) which should be > fixed

Review request: Long scrolling on mac [JDK-8183399]

Please review the fix for issue https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183399 ( https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/issues/38) which should be fixed with PR #274 (https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/274) It only affects mac builds. - Johan

Review request for JDK-8207839, JDK-8207932, JDK-8208076 (variation selector)

Hi Kevin, Phil, Please review the following Github PR. JDK-8207839 https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/125 https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/125/files JDK-8207932 https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/126 https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/126

Review request for JDK-8213541

If anyone wants to review my PR for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213541 , it would be valuable. PR can be seen here : https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/281

Re: Code review of jpackager tool (JEP 343)

Anyone interested in jpackager should definitely subscribe to core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net to comment on it and follow the review. Admittedly core-libs-dev is a very active list and this is just one topic, but it is the place to make your views known on the tool, since it is a "core

Re: Review request backport 8210386

fix for > > 12, is missing from the webrev: > > > > tests/system/src/test/java/test/com/sun/marlin/ScaleClipTest.java > > > > The rest looks OK. > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > On 10/29/2018 9:39 AM, Johan Vos wro

Re: Review request backport 8210386

M, Johan Vos wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Please review the backport of 8210386 (Marlin fixes) into 11-dev (target > 11.0.1) > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8210386/webrev.00/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejvos/8210386/webrev.00/> > > - Johan

Re: Review request backport 8210386

m the webrev: > > tests/system/src/test/java/test/com/sun/marlin/ScaleClipTest.java > > The rest looks OK. > > -- Kevin > > > On 10/29/2018 9:39 AM, Johan Vos wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > > > Please review the backport of 8210386 (Marlin fixes) into 11-dev

Re: Review request backport 8210386

The newly added test, which was pushed to jfx-dev as part of the fix for 12, is missing from the webrev: tests/system/src/test/java/test/com/sun/marlin/ScaleClipTest.java The rest looks OK. -- Kevin On 10/29/2018 9:39 AM, Johan Vos wrote: Hi Kevin, Please review the backport of 8210386

Review request backport 8210386

Hi Kevin, Please review the backport of 8210386 (Marlin fixes) into 11-dev (target 11.0.1) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8210386/webrev.00/ - Johan

Re: Code review of jpackager tool (JEP 343)

ah. as i only followed this list to follow progress on this, turns out I'm in the wrong place. :-) -- Rachel On 24/10/2018 13:10, Kevin Rushforth wrote: The code review for the jpackager tool, JEP 343, is underway: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-October/056186.html

Code review of jpackager tool (JEP 343)

The code review for the jpackager tool, JEP 343, is underway: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-October/056186.html The review is being done on the core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net mailing list, so please direct all feedback on the implementation of the JEP to that list

Re: Updated code review policies posted on OpenJFX Project Wiki

t 12:18 AM Kevin Rushforth mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: The updated code review policies that we discussed last spring are now posted on the OpenJFX Project Wiki [1]. For the most part, we have effectively been following these for the pas

Re: Review Request: JDK-8212728: Update the Eclipse classpath file for the Swing module

+1 My mistake for missing this. Sorry about that. I'll get it pushed for you shortly. -- Kevin On 10/21/2018 12:49 PM, Nir Lisker wrote: Hi, Please review the simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212728 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8212728/webrev.00/ Thanks

Review Request: JDK-8212728: Update the Eclipse classpath file for the Swing module

Hi, Please review the simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212728 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8212728/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

Re: Updated code review policies posted on OpenJFX Project Wiki

dea during the spring discussion), but would help to know who to consult with when working on some part of OpenJFX. - Nir On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:18 AM Kevin Rushforth wrote: > The updated code review policies that we discussed last spring are now > posted on the OpenJFX Project Wiki [1]. For t

Re: Review request for #151 Open VirtualFlow and other relating

on the API thanks to "nlisker" awesome involvement. We may need some help around some method naming in TableViewSkinBase. The discussion can be found here : https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/163#discussion_r225394151 2) I'm guessing the CSR stands for *Compatibility & Specif

Re: Review request for #151 Open VirtualFlow and other relating classes API for sublclassing

Samir, Also, can you provide JBS bug ID? The one you listed in your review request is the wrong Bug ID. Thanks. -- Kevin On 10/15/2018 6:00 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Note that since this is request for a new feature there are a couple other steps needed: 1. The proposed feature, along

Re: Review request for #151 Open VirtualFlow and other relating classes API for sublclassing

help). The CSR will then need review / approval from a lead: Johan or myself. The code review can proceed in parallel with #2 -- it will need (at least) two reviewers. With Oracle Code One approaching, I expect there will be some delay in the first two items, but we still have plenty of time

Review request for #151 Open VirtualFlow and other relating classes API for sublclassing

Please review the GitHub pull request: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/163 <https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/235> which fixes: Open VirtualFlow API for subclassing https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/issues/151 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/b

Review request for 8188810, "Fonts are blurry on Ubuntu 16.04 and Debian 9"

Please review the GitHub pull request: JDK-8188810: Fonts are blurry on Ubuntu 16.04 and Debian 9 https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/235 which fixes: Fonts are blurry on Ubuntu 16.04 and Debian 9 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188810 Thank you, John

Re: Review request for 8210359

I reviewed/approved on GitHub. -- Kevin On 9/4/2018 6:52 AM, Johan Vos wrote: Please review webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8210359/webrev.00/ for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210359 (this allows to build OpenJFX SDK on platforms that don't include Swing, e.g. armv6hf)

Review request for 8210359

Please review webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8210359/webrev.00/ for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210359 (this allows to build OpenJFX SDK on platforms that don't include Swing, e.g. armv6hf)

Re: Review request for 8209969

+1 On 9/3/2018 7:17 AM, Johan Vos wrote: Please review the trivial fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209969 at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8209969/webrev.00/ (approved and merged in github via https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/commit

Review request for 8209969

Please review the trivial fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209969 at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvos/8209969/webrev.00/ (approved and merged in github via https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/commit/3fbd1165a31cf07a4dcb6c854597adeccc4af7c7 ) Thanks, - Johan

Review Request for JDK-8209968: Fix rounding error in image scale calculation

Hi, This is a review request for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209968 The PR is on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/170 --John

Review-Request for JDK-8209970

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8209970 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/168 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209970 Thanks. -- Michael Ennen

[12] Review request: 8209791 : OpenJFX build fails in PrismPrint.c due to missing JNICALL

Hi, Please review this fix : Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dkumar/primanga/8209791/webrev.00/ JBS : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209791 Thanks, Priyanka

Review-Request for JDK-8209764

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8209764 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/155 Thanks. -- Michael Ennen

Review-Request for JDK-8209765

Hi, I'd like to request a review for JDK-8209765 available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/153 Thanks. -- Michael Ennen

[12] Review request: 8203379: Remove javapackager sources from OpenJFX repo

Please review the following to remove the javapackager sources and build logic from the openjfx repo: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203379 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8203379/webrev.00/ See JBS for more information. -- Kevin

Review Request: JDK-8209015: Update Eclipse project files

Hi, Please review the fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8209015/webrev.00/ Thanks, Nir

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >