On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:31:15 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The
>> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
>> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
>> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:40:50 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> > I don't like this approach. There must be better ways to achieve this, like
> > inputting the correct value as input to the action, or setting it as a
> > global gh variable. Where does even the `$JAVA_HOME_17_arm64` come from? Is
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:31:15 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> I don't like this approach. There must be better ways to achieve this, like
> inputting the correct value as input to the action, or setting it as a global
> gh variable. Where does even the `$JAVA_HOME_17_arm64` come from? Is it
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the way to determine the build jdk was not
The
[change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke get-jtreg
because the macro to determine the build jdk was not correct.
I fix this by reverting to the originally proposed way to
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:50:51 GMT, Christoph Langer wrote:
> The
> [change](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/d1c82156ba6ede4b798ac15f935289cfcc99d1a0)
> for [JDK-8325194](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325194) broke
> get-jtreg because the macro to determine the build jdk was not
10 matches
Mail list logo