> On 19 May 2017, at 11:15, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > On 2017-05-19 09:15, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Magnus, >> >> On 18/05/2017 8:06 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2017-05-18 09:35, David Holmes wrote: >>>> On 18/05/2017 5:32 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-18 08:25, David Holmes wrote: >>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174231 >>>>>> >>>>>> webrevs: >>>>>> >>>>>> Build-related: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8174231/webrev.top/ >>>>> >>>>> Build changes look good. >>>> >>>> Thanks Magnus! I just realized I left in the AC_MSG_NOTICE debugging >>>> prints outs - do you want me to remove them? I suppose they may be useful >>>> if something goes wrong on some platform. >>> >>> I didn't even notice them. :-/ >>> >>> It's a bit unfortunate we don't have a debug level on the logging from >>> configure. :-( Otherwise they would have clearly belonged there. >>> >>> The AC_MSG_NOTICE messages stands out much from the rest of the configure >>> log, so maybe it's better that you remove them. The logic itself is very >>> simple, if the -D flags are missing then we can surely tell what happened. >>> So yes, please remove them. >> >> Webrev updated in place. > Code looks good! > > In the future, I very much prefer if you do not update webrevs in place. It's > hopeless if you start reading a thread after some updates have occured, the > mails don't make any sense, and it's hard to follow after-the-fact how the > patch evolved.
Is there any chance openjdk code reviewing will adopt a slightly more modern process than webrevs such as Crucible where a full history of code evolution during a review is preserved? -Doug
