On 17/Dec/2009 09:42, Mark Hindess wrote:
> In message <4b29f72f.50...@gmail.com>, Tim Ellison writes:
>> On 17/Dec/2009 08:58, Mark Hindess wrote:
>>> -1. This change wasn't missed from a merge as a merge
>>> hasn't happened. Applying this patch wont fix the other
>>> missing changes and it wont update mergeinfo property. The
>>> correct fix is to merge /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/trunk to
>>> /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/branches/java6. I'd like permission to do
>>> this instead? Any committers approve please?
>> That would bring in lots of changes that have been added since the 5.0
>> stream was unfrozen, so I don't think this is a good idea.
>
> Lots of changes? I think you are reading:
>
> /repos/asf/harmony/enhancedclasslib/trunk
>
> but I wrote:
>
> /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/trunk
yes, I was thinking of classlib.
> I've appended the full diff below. The only commits being merged are:
>
> r834381 | hindessm | 2009-11-10 08:15:42 +0000 (Tue, 10 Nov 2009) | 2 lines
>
> Fixing Bouncy Castle license version and copyright.
>
> r818225 | hindessm | 2009-09-23 20:46:48 +0100 (Wed, 23 Sep 2009) | 9 lines
>
> Update make macro in common_resources to match classlib.
> For everything using the classlib rules.{mk,mak} files:
> 1) Create .pdb or gnu debug files in jdk/lib.
> 2) build directly to appropriate location so no copying is needed.
> Remove the copying and svn:ignore properties that aren't needed anymore.
> Replace some jdktools antcalls with depends targets.
> Added a couple of TODO items to remind me of outstanding things to be
> fixed.
Good to call these out. Are they a must fix for 6.0 M1 ... arguably (1)
is important, less so (2).
> There was a third commit (r824047) but that was a horrible conflicting
> merge in the debian packaging and I've already done that manually.
>
>> I don't see a problem with applying a targeted patch to 6.0 (rather
>> than doing the merge) to bring specific things like this up to date. A
>> later merge will auto-merge the file anyway.
>>
>> However, it sounds like you are disputing Nathan's claim that we
>> actually use BouncyCastle 1.44 in Java 6. I need to check.
>
> I think we need the .pdb copying fixes to get the build artifacts
> correct too. So I'd like to do the complete merge please.
+1
Regards,
Tim
