On 09/06/2013 09:30 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Sean
Please review the code changes at
8011402: Move blacklisting certificate logic from hard code to data
Hard coded blacklisted certificates are moved out of the class file and
now inside a data file. Furthermore, only their fingerprints are
r
Hello,
On 9/6/2013 10:20 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Google is interested in using DUAL_MODE on Linux and would prefer that at
least the code to support DUAL_MODE is not removed. I see that you are not
removing DUAL_MODE, just disabling it for Solaris.
I would prefer to see DUAL_MODE semi-suppo
On 9/6/2013 12:21 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 06/09/2013 17:47, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello,
Please review the changes to remove Solaris 32-bit binaries from JDK8
distros,
at this time the dual mode support in the launcher is being disabled.
Message regarding this:
http://mail.openjdk.java.
Hi all,
Please review the fix for this bug:
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008022
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vadim/8008022/webrev.00/
I've found that all needed DirectX 9 SDK files (that is, d3d9.h,
dsound.h and dsound.lib) are included in the Windows SDK 7.0a shipped
with Visual St
Hello,
Please review the fix for the following bug. At the moment, it's not yet
reflected in the bug database, but the symptom is that
sun.util.resources.en package is split between rt.jar and
localedata.jar, which would make it problematic in Jigsaw environment
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdataba
On 06/09/2013 17:47, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello,
Please review the changes to remove Solaris 32-bit binaries from JDK8
distros,
at this time the dual mode support in the launcher is being disabled.
Message regarding this:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8-dev/2013-September/00315
On 9/6/2013 10:20 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Google is interested in using DUAL_MODE on Linux and would prefer that
at least the code to support DUAL_MODE is not removed. I see that you
are not removing DUAL_MODE, just disabling it for Solaris.
correct, jdk8 will have the dual mode support.
Hello,
Please review the changes to remove Solaris 32-bit binaries from JDK8
distros,
at this time the dual mode support in the launcher is being disabled.
Message regarding this:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8-dev/2013-September/003159.html
The jdk changes are here:
http://cr.op
Hi Magnus,
thanks a lot for the fast review!
Please see the new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8024265.v2/
and my comments inline:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie <
magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Volker,
>
> Most of the changes look goo
Hi Kumar,
The changes to the launcher itself and the launcher tests look good.
Thanks,
-Joe
On 9/6/2013 9:47 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello,
Please review the changes to remove Solaris 32-bit binaries from JDK8
distros,
at this time the dual mode support in the launcher is being disable
On 2013-09-06 16:25, Weijun Wang wrote:
On 9/6/13 10:07 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Max,
I couldn't find the link to the review but I'm guessing this is the one:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8011402/webrev.00/
Correct, sorry about that.
3. Most important: it only works if both $
Hello Max,
I couldn't find the link to the review but I'm guessing this is the one:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8011402/webrev.00/
On 2013-09-06 15:30, Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Sean
Please review the code changes at
8011402: Move blacklisting certificate logic from hard code to data
Ha
On 9/6/13 10:07 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Max,
I couldn't find the link to the review but I'm guessing this is the one:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8011402/webrev.00/
Correct, sorry about that.
3. Most important: it only works if both $(BLACKLISTED_CERTS_SRC_OPEN)
and $(BLACKLI
Hi Sean
Please review the code changes at
8011402: Move blacklisting certificate logic from hard code to data
Hard coded blacklisted certificates are moved out of the class file and
now inside a data file. Furthermore, only their fingerprints are
released in the JRE. The makefile covers bla
Wouldn't be an open source project without a hall of shame ;-). For us
casual contributors the longer list is actually helpful as it gives us
places to go and focus, the problems.txt test exclusions also fit in this
category.
Cheers,
Martijn
On 6 September 2013 08:18, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2013-09-05 19:53, Joe Darcy wrote:
Once the "foo" category of warnings are resolved, I think it is a bit
clearer to add "foo," to the list of enabled lint warnings rather than
to remove "-foo,".
However, I'm less concerned with how the various Xlint checks are
enabled compared to getting t
16 matches
Mail list logo
