Hi Joe, I've read your reply, and I apologise for any offence my inquiry has caused.
My intent was only to ask for information. I would now like to refocus on the bug at hand. Do you, or Mandy, have a position in regards to the response I sent a few days ago? https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-March/059191.html Also, I have read the guide (finally), and I see the tests should have a bug tag. I'll add that now, in a versioned webrev. Best Regards Adam Farley IBM Runtimes Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote on 25/03/2019 17:34:42: > From: Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung > <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> > Date: 25/03/2019 17:35 > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails > to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields > > On 3/25/2019 4:50 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote: > Hiya Joe, > > Response below, > > Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote on 22/03/2019 17:05:33: > > > From: Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> > > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> > > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung > > <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> > > 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 whatI 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 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
