On 19/06/2015 8:56 AM, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Hi David,
thanks for the review, see below
On 6/18/2015 1:40 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Alejandro,
I looked at the hotspot and JDK changes.
On 17/06/2015 8:55 AM, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Please review these changes:
Bug: https://bugs.o
Hi David,
thanks for the review, see below
On 6/18/2015 1:40 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Alejandro,
I looked at the hotspot and JDK changes.
On 17/06/2015 8:55 AM, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Please review these changes:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087202
Webrev: http://c
Thanks Alan,
see below
On 6/18/2015 7:41 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 16/06/2015 23:55, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Please review these changes:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087202
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amurillo/9/8087202
The implementation of isJavaVersionA
Hi Sherman,
Looks fine.
Roger
On 6/18/2015 4:40 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
Hi,
Please help review the change to resolve the disabled "parentheses"
warnings for libzip
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074819
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8074819
thanks,
Sherman
Hi,
Please help review the change to resolve the disabled "parentheses" warnings
for libzip
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074819
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8074819
thanks,
Sherman
Hi,
Has this been tested with a JDK 9 compiler?
The last time I checked JLine wouldn't build with an OpenJDK 9 javac.
Thanks,
Ben
On 18 Jun 2015 3:26 pm, "Jan Lahoda" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am proposing to add JLine 2.12.1 into the jdk repository for use by the
> Java and Nashorn REPLs. Full p
On Jun 18, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> The problem was due to a lack of permissions to set up the user root. This
>> resulted from my omission to include the definition of the
>> java.util.prefs.userRoot property in a @run tag.
>>
>>
> This looks okay and is consistent with how
On 18/06/2015 19:20, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Please review at your convenience.
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079539
Diff:
--- a/test/java/util/prefs/CodePointZeroPrefsTest.java
+++ b/test/java/util/prefs/CodePointZeroPrefsTest.java
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
* @test
* @bug 8
Please review at your convenience.
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079539
Diff:
--- a/test/java/util/prefs/CodePointZeroPrefsTest.java
+++ b/test/java/util/prefs/CodePointZeroPrefsTest.java
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
* @test
* @bug 8068373 8075110 8075156
* @summary Ensure a code p
Hi Roger!
On 17.06.2015 17:27, Roger Riggs wrote:
I updated the webrev to remove the Windows 3.1 case and
will wait 24hrs to see if there are more comments.
I have a little concern.
You're using char-agnostic versions of functions GetSystemDirectory(),
GetFileVersionInfoSize(), GetFileVersio
> My understanding is that the new file won't have old copyright year
> (2011 in this case).
Agreed.
Thanks,
iris
My understanding is that the new file won't have old copyright year
(2011 in this case).
-Sundar
On Thursday 18 June 2015 09:20 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
On 18.6.2015 16:40, A. Sundararajan wrote:
* jdk/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jline.gmk
has copyright year 2011, 2015 despite being a new file. Any
On 18.6.2015 16:40, A. Sundararajan wrote:
* jdk/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jline.gmk
has copyright year 2011, 2015 despite being a new file. Any
specific reason?
I copied one of the existing files in the directory to just adjusted it
for jdk.jline. So I kept the copyright years there - what is t
* jdk/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jline.gmk
has copyright year 2011, 2015 despite being a new file. Any
specific reason?
* jdk.jline depends on java.desktop. Is that needed by the code by jline
code? I am asking because Nashorn requires only "compact 1" profile so
far and so can be used on compact
Hello,
I am proposing to add JLine 2.12.1 into the jdk repository for use by
the Java and Nashorn REPLs. Full patch is available here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8080679/webrev.00/full/
To aid the review, I've split this patch into to smaller patches:
-a patch that only adds unmodifie
On 16/06/2015 23:55, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Please review these changes:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087202
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amurillo/9/8087202
The implementation of isJavaVersionAtLeast in the JAXP classes look okay
although I think this is code
Hi Alejandro,
I looked at the hotspot and JDK changes.
On 17/06/2015 8:55 AM, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
Please review these changes:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087202
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amurillo/9/8087202
hotspot/make/Makefile
+ # VERSION_PATCH Secur
17 matches
Mail list logo
