On 3/25/2019 4:50 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
Hiya Joe,
Response below,
Joe Darcy <[email protected]> wrote on 22/03/2019 17:05:33:
> From: Joe Darcy <[email protected]>
> To: Adam Farley8 <[email protected]>
> Cc: core-libs-dev <[email protected]>, Mandy Chung
> <[email protected]>
> Date: 22/03/2019 17:06
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
>
> Hi Adam,
> On 3/22/2019 9:14 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I was aware that webrevs should be versioned, though I didn't see
> the value for small change sets like this one.
>
> You seem to think there is a value. Can you explain it to me?
>
> The time of reviewers is valuable and should not be dissipated in
> unnecessary attempts to determine what aspects of feedback have been
> acted upon.
> -Joe
Ah, that makes sense.
If I supplied a diff-of-diffs, would that help?
To show the difference between two diffs, I mean, so it's clear what I
changed.
How about when multiple senior reviewers in OpenJDK ask you to follow
common project conventions on versioned reviews, conventions they follow
themselves (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/), your opening position
is comply with the request (perhaps asking for a rationale or offering
additional alternatives) rather asking for a personal justification or
exception?
-Joe
