Okay, that makes sense to me! Thank you for your explanations Claes and Stuart.
Kind regards, Jonathan On 5 October 2016 at 01:57, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: > Right, the main point of the comment is to tell the reader the constructor > isn't superfluous, to prevent it from being cleaned up and accidentally > causing a regression. Full history can reside in the commit comment, the > bug database, and in these email logs. > > I'd put in a link to a bug only when there's some action on this code > associated with that bug, e.g., "don't remove this code until bug XXXXXXX > has been fixed." > > s'marks > > > On 10/4/16 5:00 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: > >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> the aim isn't to add an in-depth explanation to the code about exactly >> the circumstance that led to this constructor and comment being added, >> but to put a clear message that it was simply, in fact, deliberate, so >> even the proposed comment might be going further than strictly necessary. >> >> I'm also not convinced of the value of putting explicit links to the >> bug actually pushed, since there's an implicit link in the commit >> itself anyhow. >> >> Thanks! >> >> /Claes >> >> On 2016-10-04 23:20, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote: >> >>> The explanation which Stuart gives for this change in >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 seems to describe why >>> this constructor is needed much better than the comment itself does. So >>> I wonder if it's worth adding the link to the bug report in the comment. >>> E.g. >>> >>> // prevent generation of synthetic class required for access to private >>> // constructor. See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Jonathan >>> >>> On 4 October 2016 at 21:28, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com >>> <mailto:stuart.ma...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/4/16 3:55 AM, Claes Redestad wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >>> >>> On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: >>> >>> Webrev: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/ >>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/ >>> > >>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> Thanks for the speedy review! :-) >>> >>> >>> Thanks for looking at this. The shorter text in the bug report is ok >>> too. >>> >>> s'marks >>> >>> >>>
