Hi, I think I proposed a pretty good solution for the "jcheck" problem back then in May (see the mailing list thread posted by Chris and the quote below) and I got two positive reviews from Chris and Magnus. Unfortunately neither are they "code-tools" reviewers nor am I a "code-tools" comitter and it seems to be notoriously hard to get a sponsor from that group :)
Quoting from my previous mail: I've introduced a new attribute 'check_eof' in .jcheck/conf which controls the behavior of the new feature: # Test if we should check for a correct EOF (i.e. files end with exatly one '\n') # This behaviour is controlled by the 'check_eof' attribute in the conf file. # -1 means to not check for EOF at all. # 0 means to potentially check all the changes for a correct EOF. # any other positive number is interpreted as the revision number or change- # set ID from which on jcheck should start checking for a correct EOF. # If the 'check_eof' attribute is missing, '-1' (i.e. no EOF check) will be assumed. This way we can change jcheck and add the new EOF checking without changing its behaviour on any existing, jcheck-enabled repositories. Afterwards, any single repository can enable the EOF-checking from an arbitrary changeset on-wards. Here's the webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2015/7901298.v2/ Is anybody willing to assist sponsoring this change? Volker On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > There was a thread a while back, over on the tools mailing list about the > enforcement of this [1]. > > -Chris. > > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hg-tools-dev/2015-May/thread.html > <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hg-tools-dev/2015-May/thread.html> > > >> On 2 Sep 2015, at 21:05, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/one-newline/one-newline.patch >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134984 >> >> Sherman, what's up with repeated A1A4 in IBM1381.c2b? >
