On Dec 17, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
Ahhhh! This is a better merge. Than my proposal. I'm fine with the
whole thing. +1
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
