> 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
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 aligned the bug number in c
> 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 column 64 unless the tes
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:
Th
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
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 since
> 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 integration and
>>> incorporating the earlier feedb
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
# tools/jimage/JImageTest.
> 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
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 fo
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 as
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 n
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 wrote
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
conventio
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 used rather than the c
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 bug
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 webr
17 matches
Mail list logo
