Hi Adam,
On 3/22/19 8:40 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Please update distinct versions of a webrev (e.g. distinguished with
.1, .2 directory names) rather than overwriting a single one. This
make it easier for those coming to the review thread later to see the
evolution of the changes over time.
+1
I had requested new test in the webrev during my review. That really
helps me, a reviewer, to keep track what has been changed easily. It
will also give you an idea how many revisions this review involves when
you started for a code review (as opposed to asking for "how to fix this
issue").
I was asked to read the regression test that is attached to JBS issue [1]
I was asked to review a diff (cut-n-paste) on the mail when I requested
a webrev to include a regression test. [2]
On Jan 31, 2019 [3], I includeed a link to the OpenJDK developer guide
and I was hoping you read the guideline and be familiar with it which
should help you contributing to the OpenJDK.
I was disappointed to get your conclusion:
Historically, the bigger the change I propose, the more months it takes
the OpenJDK community to approve.
I had helped as much as I can to sponsor this patch even if you refused
what I requested to help my review easier.
I expected that you ran JDK regression tests on local machine rather
than I caught it for you. Is that what you expected a reviewer to do it
for you? Won't you consider this a new revision to your patch? You
can do anything you like and tells a reviewer that I should be smart
enough to identify the diff in the previous patch. I am not an educator
and excuse me if my response is not what you are looking for.
Mandy
[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-January/058320.html
[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-February/058544.html
[3]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-January/058350.html
[4]
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-March/058784.html
