Fine by me. - Nir
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Kevin Rushforth < kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > In that case, why don't I revert my changes and let you remove the > references after j.u.l is removed. > > -- Kevin > > > > On 5/21/2018 2:13 PM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > Since the packager is being removed I don't see a reason to keep any > references to it. In any case, the Eclipse files are planned to be updated > [1] after j.u.l. is removed [2]. > > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/ > 2018-April/021740.html > > [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195974 > > - Nir > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Phil or Ajit, >> >> Please review the following simple fix: >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203378 >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8203378/webrev.00/ >> >> This removes one qualified export from javafx.graphics to the >> no-longer-built jdk.packager module. More details in JBS. >> >> Note to Eclipse users: This patch modifies the Eclipse files to remove >> references to jdk.packager. I would like a read from the users of Eclipse >> as to whether I should do this or not. I am equally happy to commit or >> revert my changes to these files. >> >> -- Kevin >> >> > >