I've patched my local jcheck a little to work with mq:
1. If "Reviewed-by" is "nobody", accept it
2. Do not use "self.repo.tags()", bit directly read from the .hgtags
file.
Max
On May 16, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:08:39 -0700
From: jonathan.gibb...@s
Changeset: 116b019a3961
Author:ohair
Date: 2009-05-08 14:33 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/hotspot/rev/116b019a3961
6839126: Type error found by newer windows compiler
Reviewed-by: never, kvn
! src/share/vm/adlc/filebuff.hpp
Changeset: 313b56165de7
Author:vas
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:32:14 +0100
> From: Andrew John Hughes
> 2009/5/15 Mark Reinhold :
>> One changeset is best. Â You need somehow to revert the changeset
>
> Somehow I thought that's what you were going to say.. :)
> Looks like I can do a hg backout to revert the last changeset, and
>
Changeset: 88bcb6772159
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-11 12:08 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/langtools/rev/88bcb6772159
Added tag jdk7-b58 for changeset 5bcac54d408b
! .hgtags
Changeset: 0f653be1a42f
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-14 10:58 -0700
URL: htt
Changeset: 75113d7ce083
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-11 12:08 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jaxp/rev/75113d7ce083
Added tag jdk7-b58 for changeset 13bf67d8c634
! .hgtags
Changeset: 748976d69503
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-14 10:58 -0700
URL: http://h
Changeset: f64566bf4c2b
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-11 12:08 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jaxws/rev/f64566bf4c2b
Added tag jdk7-b58 for changeset 5fb4fbea81c3
! .hgtags
Changeset: 4fa7398559d0
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-14 10:58 -0700
URL: http://
Changeset: 7b47536c234e
Author:ohair
Date: 2009-03-26 16:47 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/corba/rev/7b47536c234e
6822374: Windows: detect X64 when PROCESSOR_IDENTIFIER contains EM64T or Intel64
6822913: Consolidate make/jprt.config files, let JPRT manage this file
Changeset: 030142474602
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-11 12:08 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/rev/030142474602
Added tag jdk7-b58 for changeset 59b497130f82
! .hgtags
Changeset: 0d76c4da605f
Author:vasya
Date: 2009-05-14 10:57 -0700
URL: http://hg.ope
2009/5/15 Mark Reinhold :
>> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:30:04 +0100
>> From: Andrew John Hughes
>
>> I was thinking this as I read your mail. It should be easy enough to
>> add this as an #else clause to the existing patch in Sanity.gmk.
>> What's the best way to handle updating the patch, given t
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On May 15, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
That is disturbing.
You get a dependency error -- t
Mine was definitely an upgrade (from 8.10) but I tried completely
removing and reinstalling the mercurial package, and that didn't
help. Currently, dpkg --configure -a continues to report a Mercurial
problem.
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Peter Zhelezniakov wrote:
Mark Reinhold wr
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 20:19:47 +0400
> From: peter.zheleznia...@sun.com
> Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:01 -0700
>>> From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
>>
>>> Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave
>>> up and downloaded and went back to using
On May 15, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:08:39 -0700
From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
What is your experience with the combination of mq and jcheck?
None, so far, since jcheck is disabled in the Jigsaw forest.
I like having jcheck enabled as a preextensio
Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:01 -0700
From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave
up and downloaded and went back to using 0.9.5. :-(
Odd. I've been hacking on Jigsaw using hg 1.1.2 on my Ubuntu 9.04 box,
with the
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:08:39 -0700
> From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
> What is your experience with the combination of mq and jcheck?
None, so far, since jcheck is disabled in the Jigsaw forest.
> I like having jcheck enabled as a preextension hook, but that
> didn't work well with mq.
Hmm,
On May 15, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:30:04 +0100
From: Andrew John Hughes
I was thinking this as I read your mail. It should be easy enough to
add this as an #else clause to the existing patch in Sanity.gmk.
What's the best way to handle updating the
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:30:04 +0100
> From: Andrew John Hughes
> I was thinking this as I read your mail. It should be easy enough to
> add this as an #else clause to the existing patch in Sanity.gmk.
> What's the best way to handle updating the patch, given that the
> existing patch is a co
2009/5/15 Andrew Haley :
> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
>> (a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
>> (b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
>> 0.9.5.
>> The point bei
2009/5/15 Mark Reinhold :
>> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:31:58 +0100
>> From: Andrew John Hughes
>
>> 2009/5/14 phil.r...@sun.com:
>>> I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a slippery slope as
>>> you have no way of knowing or keeping track of the consequences of
>>> not building a par
2009/5/15 Mark Reinhold :
>> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:01 -0700
>> From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
>
>> Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave
>> up and downloaded and went back to using 0.9.5. :-(
>
> Odd. I've been hacking on Jigsaw using hg 1.1.2 on my Ubuntu 9.
On May 15, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu
9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
That is disturbing.
You get a dependency error -- this was on Ubuntu 9.04, a
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
> (a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
> (b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
> 0.9.5.
> The point being that if people need version X
OK, it helps to know it might work. Having spent a while fighting
issues, I was getting
withdrawal symptoms from my jigsaw puzzle, and just wanted something
to work ;-)
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:01 -0700
From: jonathan.gibb..
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:01 -0700
> From: jonathan.gibb...@sun.com
> Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave
> up and downloaded and went back to using 0.9.5. :-(
Odd. I've been hacking on Jigsaw using hg 1.1.2 on my Ubuntu 9.04 box,
with the newest version of
What OS gave you problems?
I know TortoiseHG on Windows had problems with the notify extension, but
they tend to turn on every extension on the planet by default.
-kto
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave up
and downloaded and went back
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
That is disturbing.
(b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
0.9.5.
I'm pretty sure that is n
Il giorno ven, 15/05/2009 alle 15.33 +0200, Roman Kennke ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> > and don't like the idea of being able to disable Nimbus
> > because of this dependency.
>
> Too many negations and ablebables for my parser... Oops. ;-)
>
> /Roman
Argh :)
I mean, disabling it for testing is one t
Il giorno ven, 15/05/2009 alle 09.53 +0100, Andrew Haley ha scritto:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > 2009/5/14 Kelly O'Hair :
> >> If the OpenJDK was able to build with jibx 1.1.6 or 1.2.1,
> >> or in general was able to build with more of the jibx versions
> >> (I don't know how hard that would be
> Oh, and if we have somehow become dependent upon a third-party tool
> (JIBX) that's so difficult to locate and has such a low commitment to
> interface stability, then perhaps we should reconsider that and use a
> different tool.
The decision to remove this tool from the version control, yet sti
Yeah, tried that, didn't work for me; I had to do real work so I gave
up and downloaded and went back to using 0.9.5. :-(
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
Hi,
Jonathan Gibbons writes:
I was getting problems in the extensions (forest, I think was the
main
stumbling
Hi,
Jonathan Gibbons writes:
> I was getting problems in the extensions (forest, I think was the main
> stumbling block) which seems not to be supported any longer.
Did you check the following?
http://bitbucket.org/pmezard/hgforest-crew/overview/
It's linked from the forest extension page with
I was getting problems in the extensions (forest, I think was the main
stumbling block) which seems not to be supported any longer.
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/15 Anthony Petrov :
On 5/15/2009 5:48 PM Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that ye
2009/5/15 Anthony Petrov :
> On 5/15/2009 5:48 PM Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>
>> The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
>> (a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
>> (b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
>>
On 5/15/2009 5:48 PM Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
(b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
0.9.5.
I don't experience any problems
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
(b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
0.9.5.
The point being that if people need version X of something they will
downl
Peter Zhelezniakov wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> We are not in a position to dictate to a user exactly which version of
>> JIBX will be installed on their system. Therefore, if JIBX is now a
>> dependency of OpenJDK we'll have to find a way to make OpenJDK work
>> with whatever versions of JIBX
Hi,
> and don't like the idea of being able to disable Nimbus
> because of this dependency.
Too many negations and ablebables for my parser... Oops. ;-)
/Roman
--
Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org
aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH
Haid
Andrew Haley wrote:
We are not in a position to dictate to a user exactly which version of
JIBX will be installed on their system. Therefore, if JIBX is now a
dependency of OpenJDK we'll have to find a way to make OpenJDK work
with whatever versions of JIBX people choose.
To make it clear: JIB
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Kelly O'Hair :
>> If the OpenJDK was able to build with jibx 1.1.6 or 1.2.1,
>> or in general was able to build with more of the jibx versions
>> (I don't know how hard that would be) does that change things?
>
> It would simplify things a little, yes. I'm no
Kirill Grouchnikov wrote:
> Oh, and if we have somehow become dependent upon a third-party tool
> (JIBX) that's so difficult to locate and has such a low commitment to
> interface stability, then perhaps we should reconsider that and use a
> different tool.
The decision to remove this tool f
40 matches
Mail list logo
