Thanks Thomas. The sole reason for making it P1 is that it is currently not possible to build a Java 10 conforming version of OpenJDK with an empty vendor version.
The specification doesn't mandate a non-empty vendor version and I don't think OpenJDK should mandate on either. Regards, Volker On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fix is fine, trivial and I do not think there is any risk attached to it. I > am not in any position to comment whether this is P1. Copyright year needs > adjusting. > > Kind Regards, Thomas > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> can I please get a review for the following tiny fix: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/ >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927 >> >> The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property >> mandatory [1] but the current implementations doesn't allow to set it >> to an empty string. >> >> Currently, if we don't configure the build with >> --with-vendor-version=XXX the 'java.vendor.version' property won't be >> set at all, which violates the spec. Setting it to an empty string >> will be ignored and has the same behavior like not setting it at all. >> This also makes default OpenJDK builds (which haven't been configured >> with --with-vendor-version non-compliant). >> >> The fix is trivial: unconditionally set the 'java.vendor.version' >> property to the value of VENDOR_VERSION_STRING in >> VersionProps.java.template, even if VENDOR_VERSION_STRING is the empty >> string (which is the default if --with-vendor-version wasn't given at >> config time). >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> Volker >> >> >> [1] >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/10/pfd/java-se-10-pfd-spec/apidiffs/java/lang/System-report.html#method:getProperties() > >
