Addendum: URL for new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8216558.1/webrev/
Adam Farley8/UK/IBM wrote on 25/03/2019 18:04:05: > From: Adam Farley8/UK/IBM > To: Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung > <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> > Date: 25/03/2019 18:04 > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails > to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields > > 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 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
