On 12/10/2014 10:20 PM, Victor D'yakov wrote:
Do we need to split it to AWT, Swing and 2D?
I would not find that helpful.
The email is to 3 lists and its not clear who would pick up reviewing it.
I assume the people in each are would review their piece of the change.
Also please use "client" forest this is our repo for pre-integration
testing all together with Client SQE we are following to avoid
regression cases.
As I explained below, since the code changes involve only copyright
updates (in comments) and annotations (which don't affect the generated
bytecode), there will no be functional change in the output based on
this changeset.
Therefore, as long as a build succeeds, I don't see what difference
client SQE testing would make in this particular case.
-Joe
Victor
On 10.12.2014 3:41, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
In support of JEP 212: Resolve Lint and Doclint Warnings
(http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/212), which is targeted to JDK 9,
please review the large but straightforward set of changes in the
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8066621.0/
Some background of the approach being taken to address this part of
JEP 212 was discussed on core-libs:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-December/030085.html
Briefly, to allow the deprecation warnings to be dealt with and that
sole remaining lint warning category enabled in the build, a two-step
approach is being taken. The first step is to suppress the
deprecation warnings and the second step is for area-experts to
examine the specific uses of deprecated APIs in their code. This
webrev only attempts to cover the first step.
The webrev is based off of the JDK 9 "dev" forest rather than the
"client" forest. Since the change only involves copyright updates and
adding annotations, there would be no functional modification in the
changeset. Therefore, I would strongly prefer to push these changes
directly to dev rather than pushing them to client and waiting for
them to propagate to dev to expedite the time when the build warning
can be enabled. (If a warning is not enabled in the build, new
instances of the warning tend to creep into the code base.)
Thanks,
-Joe
