If it hasn’t been pushed I’ll change it? Chris
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > On 27/04/2016 21:44, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Looks fine to me, too. >> >> Btw, I thought Mandy had earlier suggested jdk.tools.jlink.internal.packager >> as a name, but it's currently jdk.tools.internal.packager (without the >> jlink). I don't care one way or the other and the current one is shorter. > Mandy's suggestion sounds right to me as jlink already has internals in > jdk.tools.jlink.internal.**. If it's temporary then the suggest is probably > okay although if temporary means to JDK 9 GA then it might be better to > change it now. > > -Alan
