+1 I converted JDK-8237869 to be a subtask of JDK-8237888.
@Sean: I couldn't assign it to you but I assume you'll pick it yourself and add do the necessary updates. Thanks. Best regards Christoph > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> > Sent: Montag, 27. Januar 2020 17:13 > To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; Langer, Christoph > <christoph.lan...@sap.com>; security-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: [CAUTION] RFR [XS]: 8237869: exclude jtreg test > security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA. > java because of instabilities - was : RE: jtreg test > security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrus > > Looks fine to me. > > --Sean > > On 1/27/20 11:10 AM, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Hi, new webrev , now with the other bugid : > > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8237869.1/ > > > > > > > > ... and new issue to track the LuxTrust instabilities : > > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237888 > > > security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA. > java fails when checking validity interval > > > > > > Best regards, Matthias > > > > > >> On 1/27/20 8:41 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote: > >>> Hi Matthias, > >>> > >>> the entry in ProblemList.txt can't refer to 8237869, which is the bug that > >> you're using to submit the exclusion. It must refer to the item that shall > >> resolve the underlying issue which probably is Oracle's private bug that > Sean > >> referred to. > >> Right. > >> > >>> @Sean: In the interest of backportability, I'd ask you to either open up > the > >> internal bug and supply its id. If that isn't possible, could you please > >> create > a > >> new public item and have your internal bug refer to it? > >> > >> I can't open it up because it contains internal network addresses. Even > >> if I scrub them out, I believe you could still see them in the History. > >> > >> I would suggest that Matthias open a new public bug to track this issue > >> using the information in the Description of JDK-8237869, and I will then > >> mark 8237869 as a duplicate. You can assign that bug to me for now. Most > >> likely it is an issue that LuxTrust has to fix on their end, and once > >> that is fixed we can simply remove it from the ProblemList. > >> > >> Thanks,
