Re: RFR(7u): JDK-8012351: Bold fonts everywhere in GTK L&F on Ubuntu with JDK 7

Hi, Whilst it is up to the maintainer of the 7u project to decide what to do, I thought one thing we had established a long time ago is that it is good practice to check with (and CC) the original author of a fix when requesting a back port. Backports are generally initiated by said author, not j

Re: jdk7u Maintainership

Kelly O'Hair has ben the group lead for build - and also the infra project but he resigned a week ago from both : here's the build group email .. http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-January/014030.html .. and so far no one has been nominated to take his place -phil. On 1/20/15

Re: JDK-8046211 - why won't fix?

Dalibor is correct .. although for some reason all the comments on the bug are tagged internal only so anyone looking without being logged in as an Oracle employee sees no reasoning at all. I'll ping the evaluator to add some public information. -phil. On 6/20/2014 5:52 AM, dalibor.to...@oracl

Re: [7u communication] Plans for delivery of critical 7u fixes into CPU releases

I think I can see Mario's point/confusion. The CPU-critical-request keyword is really just about what you'd like to see in Oracle's next binary product release and isn't needed for OpenJDK since the fix is likely already sitting in 7u-dev and just has to be pulled into the CPU binary release.

[7u40] Request for phase 2 approval for CR 8015334: Memory leak in kerning

Bug : http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8015334 Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8015334.jdk7.1 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2013-June/003485.html Reviewed by Steven Loomis, Andrew Brygin Rationale : Nasty memory leak which quickly takes down the whole JRE. R

Re: >=2 reviewers imply at least two have "reviewer" role?

On 6/25/2013 1:52 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: in that case, I'd suggest that we go for the stricter interpretation, and require two jdk7u reviewers. BTW this could mean that the original 8 fix which is back ported may need additional review. Yes. Do you think that would be challenging in gener

Re: >=2 reviewers imply at least two have "reviewer" role?

Historically the SE client areas (swing/awt/2d) have required 2 reviewers for everything that's a significant change. test, doc, trivial fixes can have one reviewer. I can't say this has been 100% enforced, but we've tried. This has been policy for a long time - well before openjdk. Its not primar

[7u]: request for approval 8015556 : Supplementary chars broken on macos x

Bug : http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8015556 JDK 8 Changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/0a17344d074e JDk 7 Webrev : /http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8015556.jdk7/ /Email : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/20

[7u] Request for approval for back port of 8008535 : JDK7 Printing : CJK and Latin Text in a string overlap.

Bug : http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008535 Changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/f24f9038e050 JDk 8 Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8008535/ Email : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2013-May/003374.html -phil

[7u] Request for approval for back port of 8008535 : JDK7 Printing : CJK and Latin Text in a string overlap.

Bug : http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008535 Changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/f24f9038e050 JDk 8 Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8008535/ Email : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2013-May/003374.html -phil

[7u] Request for approval for back port of 8008535 : JDK7 Printing : CJK and Latin Text in a string overlap.

Bug : http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008535 Changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/f24f9038e050 JDk 8 Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8008535/ Email : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2013-May/003374.html -phil

Re: [7u communication] Schedule and release renumbering update

On 4/22/2013 2:09 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: - Original Message - Can you explain why we can't just number the release as the number of the previous release plus 1, like most other projects? A naive person would expect 17 to be followed by 18, for example, not 21. Here's what I unders

Re: Approval request for 8004316

I believe the process on requesting a backport is that the 8 code approvers need to be CC'd and that the 7 release managers should be enforcing this. In this email there's basically no justification of the need for a backport and I heartily disapprove of backporting 8004316. Its not that importa

Re: [7u12] request for approval, 7109274, Restrict the use of certificates with RSA keys less than 1024 bits

In another "thread" there was a reference to a site which showed zero out of the top 178,000 sites using the weak key : https://www.trustworthyinternet.org/ssl-pulse/ -phil. On 12/28/2012 1:18 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 28/12/2012 09:41, Xuelei Fan wrote: Hi, This is a request to backport a J

Re: Request for review : FreeType embedded in OSX packages

On 10/16/12 3:55 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: On 10/16/12 6:02 PM, Henri Gomez wrote: Will it be included ? For 7 updates, it would need make its way into 8 first. Then, after a while, someone would need to post a request for approval for backport, as usual. Build system changes should really be

Re: Lib requirements in Java 7 vs OpenJDK 7

I don't think we provide any kind of listing of the FX files you can refer to but you could install the 'standalone' FX for 6ux and you'd see which files are delivered with that. On 9/28/2012 7:42 AM, Henri Gomez wrote: I found interesting informations here : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail

Re: Backports to jdk7u / was : (Re: Request for approval:7151427: Fix the potential memory leak in error handling code in X11SurfaceData.c)

ixes on in my view! Fixing in jdk8 is also a requirement for jdk7u integration. I do see validity in your point around deciding risk assessment of backports. It's possibly something that we need to scrutinize more ? That brings more work for reviewers of course. regards, Sean. On 18/09/20

Re: Request for approval:7151427: Fix the potential memory leak in error handling code in X11SurfaceData.c

Actually this clearly falls into the 'not remotely important enough to backport' bucket. So I would not approve this backport. -phil. On 9/18/12 10:39 AM, Seán Coffey wrote: Approved for jdk7u-dev. Note that this most likely means the fix will end up in 7u12. If there's a strong justification

Re: [7u10] Request for approval: 7112670: Inet4AddressImpl should use getaddrinfo/getnameinfo

In addition to Alan's point, but not in any way specifically about this fix, I'd like to ask why backport requests are unaccompanied by any kind of risk assessment and justification ? Do we lack a guideline on this ? Is the release manager expected to be able to deduce the risk etc ? 'Stabilisati

Re: [7u10] Request for approval: 7166055: Javadoc for WeakHashMap contains misleading advice

On 9/15/12 3:46 AM, David Holmes wrote: Phil, On 15/09/2012 2:57 AM, Phil Race wrote: I really don't think its appropriate to push javadoc changes into an update release without a really, really compelling reason that I don't see here. That is certainly true if they represent a spe

Re: [7u10] Request for approval: 7166055: Javadoc for WeakHashMap contains misleading advice

I really don't think its appropriate to push javadoc changes into an update release without a really, really compelling reason that I don't see here. A reminder: Update releases aren't a free-for-all. You need to exercise judgement in what has to go in and what is the case for it. We are up to

Re: Possible atomicity violations when composing concurrent collections operations

On 8/2/2012 11:52 AM, Yu Lin wrote: My name is Yu Lin. I'm a Ph.D. student in the CS department at UIUC. I'm currently doing research on mining Java concurrent library misuses. I found some uses of concurrent collections in OpenJDK7u may result in potential atomicity violation bugs or harm the pe

Re: [7u8] Request for approval: 7113017: Use POSIX compliant include file headers in sun/awt/medialib/mlib_types.h

Edvard, This change to 7u8 needs to be reverted. We have a probable fix to this bad fix for JDK 8, but we can't afford to be debugging unnecessary changes in the 7ux train. -phil. On 7/31/2012 12:52 PM, Phil Race wrote: I didn't notice this request before due to being extremely bu

Re: [7u8] Request for approval: 7113017: Use POSIX compliant include file headers in sun/awt/medialib/mlib_types.h

nt include file headers in mlib-types.h Chaneset in jdk8 @ http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/89952dc5be8e Webrev for jdk7u @ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~littlee/jdk7u/252/webrev.00/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Elittlee/jdk7u/252/webrev.00/> Reviewed by: Phil Race Andrew Brygin Pl

[7u6] Request for phase 2 approval for CR 7183251: Netbeans editor renders text wrong on JDK 7u6 build 17

Showstopper fix for a regression notably affecting Netbeans text rendering. Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7183251 Fix has been requested and approved by by 7u6 release team Reviewed by Igor Nekrestyanov and Jennifer Godinez Fix is already in JDK 8 (as well as 6u34) thus this is a bac

[7u6] Request for approval : CR 7145771 : Register font failing

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/7145771.7u6/ http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-June/002616.html -phil.

Wrong bug ID used in push : Was Re: hg: jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk: 7158366: [macosx] Print-to-file dialog doesn't have an entry field for a name

Hmm .. and since I used that bug ID a few days ago in the same repo, jcheck should have caught that, shouldn't it ? Maybe I don't have it configured right on my Mac? And I expect this is going to be a problem. -phil. On 6/21/12 3:07 PM, Phil Race wrote: Oh rats. The fix is fine bu

Re: hg: jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk: 7158366: [macosx] Print-to-file dialog doesn't have an entry field for a name

Oh rats. The fix is fine but this has the wrong bug id and reviewer list. Should have been :- 7124536 : [macosx] PrintServiceLookup.lookupDefaultPrintService() return null Reviewed-by: bae, igor -phil. On 6/21/12 2:57 PM, philip.r...@oracle.com wrote: Changeset: 6460dac7a299 Author:prr

[7u6] Request approval for CR 7124536

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/7124536.7u6/ Bug means we think there's no default printer because Mac OS X handles this differently. Review here : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-June/002597.html Lots of discussion about how best to future-proof detecting the Mac platform wh

[7u6] Request approval for CR 7158366 : [macosx] Print-to-file dialog doesn't have an entry field for a name

Backport a JDK 8 fix into 7u6 : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/7158366.7u6/ 7u6 Fix reviewed here http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-June/002571.html -phil.

Re: Rule 1

Bug fix deficits are a pain to manage as we learned in 7. So yes, this would be a good thing. Providing a pointer to the already pushed JDK8 change set in the approval requests as is generally required for back ports would help enforce this. One question though : are the committers who are be

Re: CFV: New JDK7u Committer: Mike Swingler

Vote : yes. -phil.

Re: Dropping 32-bit support (was Branches)

2 PM, Mike Swingler wrote: Would it be feasible to overload ARCH_DATA_MODEL to take a string like "32+64", "32/64", or "Universal" (even though that's an ambiguous misnomer)? On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Phil Race wrote: 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL' has histo

Re: Dropping 32-bit support (was Branches)

'ARCH_DATA_MODEL' has historically been used to select a build as 32 or 64 bit. So 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL=32' ought to be able to select a 32 bit only build without too many build changes. Making that support 32+64 as well may be appropriate for OS X builds. -phil. On 2/21/2012 3:19 PM, Mike Swi

Re: Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest

Michael. On 25/10/11 20:46, Phil Race wrote: Paul, Just so you know, OpenJDK on OS X doesn't use X11. Earlier that's all there was but now that's obsolete and its based on Cocoa APIs. -phil. On 10/19/11 12:27 PM, Paul Hohensee wrote: On 10/17/11 4:20 PM, Henri Gomez wrot

Re: Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest

mouthful) where we could build testable bundles on osx before the client work is integrated. Paul On 10/25/11 3:46 PM, Phil Race wrote: Paul, Just so you know, OpenJDK on OS X doesn't use X11. Earlier that's all there was but now that's obsolete and its based on Cocoa APIs. -ph

Re: Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest

Paul, Just so you know, OpenJDK on OS X doesn't use X11. Earlier that's all there was but now that's obsolete and its based on Cocoa APIs. -phil. On 10/19/11 12:27 PM, Paul Hohensee wrote: On 10/17/11 4:20 PM, Henri Gomez wrote: What does it means for osx builder like me ? This is what I

Re: Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest

not cause regressions on other platforms. But I suspect its going to take a while to get to all the tests passing .. -phil. 4. The current macos-port forest would be obsoleted. Paul On 10/6/11 2:41 PM, Phil Race wrote: I think there's a while to figure out what makes sense as the &

Re: Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest

I think there's a while to figure out what makes sense as the "stable port" will take a while to come about but someone needs to figure out what gets us where we want to be, so I wouldn't rush the implementation .. Anyway, on openjdk we currently have 1. macos-porting project 2. 7u-dev 3. jdk8

Request for approval for CR Hebrew characters are not rendered on OEL 5.6

http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7050826 Trivial diff :- --- a/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/fontpath.c Fri Sep 02 04:28:49 2011 -0700 +++ b/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/fontpath.c Tue Sep 06 13:40:31 2011 -0700 @@ -1191,8 +1191,16 @@ Java_sun_font_FontConfigManager_getFontC fontform