2009/5/29 Mark Reinhold :
>> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:51:24 +0100
>> From: Andrew John Hughes
>
>> ...
>>
>> Looks like the Contributed-by info is wrong. I tried adding the line
>> as in the example and jcheck choked:
>>
>> remote: > Contributed-by: Andrew John Hughes
>> remote:
>> remote: Inva
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:51:24 +0100
> From: Andrew John Hughes
> ...
>
> Looks like the Contributed-by info is wrong. I tried adding the line
> as in the example and jcheck choked:
>
> remote: > Contributed-by: Andrew John Hughes
> remote:
> remote: Invalid contributor attribution
> remot
I'll try and get the example fixed.
-- Jon
On May 21, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/21 Jonathan Gibbons :
Andrew,
Yes, Contributed-by: just takes a simple email address. It'll be
munged (@
-> " at ") automatically on web pages.
-- Jon
Ugh, should have thought
2009/5/21 Jonathan Gibbons :
> Andrew,
>
> Yes, Contributed-by: just takes a simple email address. It'll be munged (@
> -> " at ") automatically on web pages.
>
> -- Jon
>
Ugh, should have thought of that. It's confusing having an example
that doesn't work as given :(
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 8
Andrew,
Yes, Contributed-by: just takes a simple email address. It'll be
munged (@ -> " at ") automatiocally on web pages.
-- Jon
On May 21, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/21 Mark Reinhold :
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:17:21 +0100
From: Andrew John Hughes
Ok, new
2009/5/21 Mark Reinhold :
>> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:17:21 +0100
>> From: Andrew John Hughes
>
>> Ok, new webrev created against jdk7/build:
>>
>> http://fuseyism.com/6841728/webrev.01/
>
> Looks good to me -- go ahead and push when ready.
>
Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:17:21 +0100
> From: Andrew John Hughes
> Ok, new webrev created against jdk7/build:
>
> http://fuseyism.com/6841728/webrev.01/
Looks good to me -- go ahead and push when ready.
> I presume I need to wait a bit due to the current block on pushes though.
No, the grou
2009/5/16 Mark Reinhold :
>> 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
Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:32:14 +0100
From: Andrew John Hughes
[...snip...]
(I can't resist pointing out that if you were using Mercurial patch
 queues you could just pop to that patch, edit, re-test, finalize,
 and then push the resulting changeset upstream.)
Yeah,
An mq patch changeset has a "virtual" tag (in self.repo.tags()) which
is not recorded in the .hgtags file.
I think even for an mq patch, jcheck can still check about TAB, CR and
end white spaces.
Max
On May 16, 2009, at 9:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Is it not possible to detect that mq
Is it not possible to detect that mq is in use/"active" and just bail on
jcheck altogether? i.e. jcheck should surely not apply if you're just
commiting a patch into your local set of mq patches.
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote:
I've patched my local jcheck a litt
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
> 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
>
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
> 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 particular component.
>
> Sure, but
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
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 particular component.
Sure, but if someone chooses to set DISABLE_NIMBUS then they take th
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?
>
> -kto
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/5/14 Phil Race :
>>>
>>> I do thi
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?
-kto
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a sl
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
> 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 particular component.
Sure, but if someone chooses to set DISABLE_NIMBUS then they take that
risk. It's much the sa
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 particular component.
I suggest its better to fix the local build problem than push workarounds
upstream.
-phil.
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
> There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
> so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
> seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> HI all,
>>
>> I have a s
Is that a 'seems ok'?
---
The makefiles changes seem fine to me.
-kto
Phil Race wrote:
There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
-phil.
There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
-phil.
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
HI all,
I have a simple patch that allows the building of the
54 matches
Mail list logo
