If you meant this:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2011-December/001130.html
Yes, I've gotten the approval from Edvard.
Note that, the jaxp update itself (without the build change) was
approved for 7u2.
On 1/3/2012 11:16 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
So you have a review from me.
I think you need to send this CR/webrev and request for approval to the
jdk7u-...@openjdk.java.net alias for 7u4
Or did you do that already? Hopefully we can fix this drop stuff before
12/12/12 and the end of the world. 8^{
We have 330 days to pray the world could make enough change to alter
that fate. And maybe, this could be a tiny tiny tiny bit of it - no one
knows, but since no one else has done it, we can claim that that was it
when 12/13 comes ;-)
-Joe
-kto
On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Joe Wang wrote:
On 12/30/2011 6:14 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 28/12/2011 17:18, Joe Wang wrote:
Kelly asked for 6-open and jdk8 as well. Since we're changing the jaxp bundle
process, we thought we would do the same for 6-open and jdk8 once this works
out. But we can take the change to jdk8 first if this is approved. The only
question I had was that the jdk8 modularization would change the jaxp source
structure. But Kelly thought that's not a problem. I guess we don't mind
another big changeset :)
I think it's too early to know if modularization will require the jaxp source
code to be restructured as modules. It would clearly be desirable, in
particular if jaxp migrates completely. However, if there are still activity
upstream (you mentioned monitoring comm...@jaxp-sources.java.net) or some need
to keep the 7u and 8 code in sync then it would complicate things a bit.
Yeh, there are several undecided factors affecting jaxp project/source right
now. If there's no absolute requirement for a jaxp update in jdk8, I would
prefer we wait a couple of weeks for things to settle.
-Joe
-Alan
