Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: > > Pushed after a de-tabbification and verifying the set of tests to run was the > same before and after the update. It looks good. Mandy

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

On 3/30/2016 5:34 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your > correction to the commented-out test: > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 > > I aligned the bug number in

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hi Sergey, The thinking is the reformatted file, with the bug on the same line as the test, will allow in the future better reporting and analysis of problem list entries with information from the bug database. Thanks for the review; HTH, -Joe On 3/30/2016 5:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

The fix looks fine to me. can you please clarify what "enabling better reporting" from the bug description means? Where this information will be reported? On 31.03.16 2:48, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hi Mandy, On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 #

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > > Hello, > > New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and > incorporating the earlier feedback. > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 > # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 Thanks, -Joe On 3/16/2016 4:52 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Jon, Noted; I'll make that improvement in the next round. Thanks

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

On 03/11/2016 07:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Just a follow-up, to avoid causing additional merge headaches, I'll revise the patch to make this change once the next round of Jigsaw changes get back in jdk9/dev (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-March/003877.html). Thanks, -Joe On 3/12/2016 1:28 PM, Chris Hegarty

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hi Jon, Noted; I'll make that improvement in the next round. Thanks for pointing this out, -Joe On 3/16/2016 4:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: On 03/11/2016 07:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Looks good to me. --Sean On 03/11/2016 10:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Looks good Joe. -Chris > On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:28, joe darcy wrote: > > Hello, > > As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly > include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better > reporting. This format should be

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Looks fine. On 12.03.16 6:28, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the

JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the