Hi,
can I please get a review for the following tiny fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927
The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property
mandatory [1] but the current implementations doesn't allow
Fix is fine, trivial and I do not think there is any risk attached to it. I
am not in any position to comment whether this is P1. Copyright year needs
adjusting.
Kind Regards, Thomas
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Volker Simonis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can I please get a review for the following ti
Thanks Thomas.
The sole reason for making it P1 is that it is currently not possible
to build a Java 10 conforming version of OpenJDK with an empty vendor
version.
The specification doesn't mandate a non-empty vendor version and I
don't think OpenJDK should mandate on either.
Regards,
Volker
On
2018/2/14 2:20:22 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> can I please get a review for the following tiny fix:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927
>
> The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property
>
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, wrote:
> 2018/2/14 2:20:22 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
>> can I please get a review for the following tiny fix:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927
>>
>> The new Java 10 specifica
2018/2/14 8:04:15 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
>> This is a bug in the specification, not the implementation. As I just
>> wrote in a comment on 8197927:
>>
>> JEP 322 expresses the intended behavior: If `--with-vendor-version
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
> 2018/2/14 8:04:15 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
> >> This is a bug in the specification, not the implementation. As I just
> >> wrote in a comment on 8197927:
> >>
> >> JEP 322 expre
2018/2/16 10:59:57 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Of course it's possible. The specification need merely say that
>> `java.vendor.version` is a standard system property that may, or may
>> not, have a value. (Or, if you like,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, wrote:
> 2018/2/16 10:59:57 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
> >> Of course it's possible. The specification need merely say that
> >> `java.vendor.version` is a standard system property that ma