> I'm not sure if I'm formally allowed to be a reviewer, since I've
> wrote the absolute majority of the code myself.
The way I've done this in the past is a "Contributed-by:" line listing
all of the folks that contributed and a "Reviewed-by:" line listing all
the reviewers. Magnus, you reviewed
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2016-04-07 14:48, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure ye
On 2016-04-07 14:48, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new
bundle targets for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a
reimplementation of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from th
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we
likely need to pro
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we
likely need to pro
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle
targets for all kinds of bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It
might mean a reimplementation of this patch, not sure yet. Your docs
bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we likely need to
pr
On 06/04/16 10:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
I assume the mx projects are for Java code or do they also generate
projects for native? The new top level target is only meant to replace
the old Visual Studio project generator, at least for now.
+1 for having the build system a more central r
Hello!
As I sad I did:
I used your patch (also with remarks and suggestions from the last email)
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/jdk8-archivedJavadoc.patch
created subpackage
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/commit/?id=db2f51d
On 07/04/2016 09:55, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
This small patch adds the module jdk.jdwp.agent to the JRE image.
Looks good, this was accidentally dropped when we integrated JEP 220.
-Alan
Thanks all!
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Erik Joelsson
wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> /Erik
>
>
> On 2016-04-07 12:40, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Volker Simonis > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> thanks for doing this fix. It looks go
On 2016-04-04 13:34, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/04/2016 12:04, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Makefile looks good.
If you move Java_sun_rmi_transport_GC_maxObjectInspectionAge out of
libjava, should you also remove it from the mapfile for libjava?
Yes, libjava/mapfile-vers will need to be updated t
On 2016-04-07 11:55, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Any chance I could get a reivew for this?
I think the profile should be named "linux-aarch64", since that's how
the open platform port refers to itself, and also to avoid collision
with the closed "arm64" port.
Otherwise, the patch looks good.
/M
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2016-04-07 12:40, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi Volker,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Volker Simonis
wrote:
Hi Thomas,
thanks for doing this fix. It looks good.
I've also forwarded your request to build-dev as this is a build change.
Just one question: do we pass
On 2016-04-07 11:57, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2016-04-06 11:10, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Dan and thank you for the review! I know it's a lot to chew
through.
I have incorporated your changes and published a new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8152666/webrev.02/
I'm not sure
Hi Volker,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Volker Simonis
wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> thanks for doing this fix. It looks good.
>
> I've also forwarded your request to build-dev as this is a build change.
>
> Just one question: do we pass the new test
>
> test/java/awt/SplashScreen/MultiResolutio
Hi Thomas,
thanks for doing this fix. It looks good.
I've also forwarded your request to build-dev as this is a build change.
Just one question: do we pass the new test
test/java/awt/SplashScreen/MultiResolutionSplash/unix/UnixMultiResolutionSplashTest.java
which came in with 8145174 on AIX or d
On 2016-04-06 11:10, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Dan and thank you for the review! I know it's a lot to chew
through.
I have incorporated your changes and published a new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8152666/webrev.02/
I'm not sure if I'm formally allowed to be a reviewer, since I
Any chance I could get a reivew for this?
/Erik
On 2016-03-30 12:10, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Updated patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8151973/webrev.top.01/
Now that JDK-8152545 has been resolved, there is nothing stopping the
open linux-aarch64 port from being cross compiled. With these
Hello,
This small patch adds the module jdk.jdwp.agent to the JRE image.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153660
Patch:
diff -r 4f4adcdff6b4 make/common/Modules.gmk
--- a/make/common/Modules.gmk
+++ b/make/common/Modules.gmk
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@
#
JRE_TOOL_MODULES += \
+j
19 matches
Mail list logo
