2009/3/13 David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com>: > On 03/12/2009 07:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: >> >> David M. Lloyd wrote: >>> >>> On 03/12/2009 05:41 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote: >>>> >>>> You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1]. >>>> Using that will increase the probability that someone will evaluate >>>> your patch sooner rather than later. >>>> >>>> - Mark >>>> >>>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/contribute >>> >>> Consider my post to be step 2 of that process. The patch itself is >>> probably the most succinct way of expressing the proposed change (it >>> only took a minute or two to write in any case). >> >> That's understandable, but it's a lot easier to find interesting patches >> to review in a bug tracker, then to search for them among mailing list >> threads. > > [...] > > OK, that's reasonable. Perhaps Step 2 should be switched with Step 3 then > on the "contribute" page to make it match up then? >
I think it's more the case that step 2 is unnecessary for such a specific case. It applies more to a situation where the implementation would take a significant amount of time, such that it should first be discussed to avoid wasted time and/or work duplication. >> It seems that the change would break serialization, by changing the type >> of a serialized field (in both classes) away from a primitive one. See >> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/platform/serialization/spec/version.html >> for details. > > The fields are static so it shouldn't matter. > > - DML > -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
