Yes, I think it'll help immensely if you have separate webrevs for each bug.
As the patches/changes are recorded into each bug record, I think we
should always separate the changes out.
As far as I am concerned, this is more critical then the coding-style
convention. But personal opinion may vary.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 07/10/13 21:56, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
Sure I'll break it up if that's easier and someone will review it.
thanks
Tony
On 07/10/2013 06:07 PM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
Tony,
Did someone review this yet?
Since there are 3 bug fixes, can you separate them out into 3 webrevs?
I believe that has been the convention to have one webrev corresponding
to one bug.
Otherwise, things can get confusing for both reviewers as well as
sustaining if later they tried to backport.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 06/24/13 11:37, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
I need a code review for some test changes. They include the follow
bugs:
JDK-8012971 PKCS11Test hiding exception failures
JDK-7193793 sun/security/pkcs11/ec/TestECDH.java failing intermittently
JDK-7198198 sun/security/pkcs11/ec/ReadCertificates.java fails on Suse
Linux
A significant change is reading the NSS version. The test can now
avoid old NSS libraries or a bug in a version of NSS that generate
false jdk failures. This greatly helps ECC support and curve support
are varied.
The fix to expose the exceptions that were being hidden did generate
new test failures that already had filed bugs. The failures were
added to the ProblemList.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ascarpino/8012971/webrev.00/
Tony
