Hi David, Sorry for my incorrect mail thread.
For this issue, I already got two reviewers: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-February/020968.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-February/020973.html Yasumasa 2017-02-13 10:09 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <[email protected]>: > Hi Yasumasa, > > Please don't start new email threads on the same topic just to add a cc. > I've added to the existing thread and that is now missed on this new one! > It makes it hard to track comments, reviews and outstanding issues. > serviceability-dev was the correct mailing list for this change, there was > no need to also send to hotspot-dev. > > On 11/02/2017 12:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> On 10/02/17 14:15, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >> >>> We need one or more reviewer. Could you review it? >>> >> >> We don't need another reviewer. We need a sponsor to put it >> through JPRT. >> > > For hotspot changes we do prefer at least 2 reviews (though only 1 need be > a Reviewer). The rules are not clearly documented anywhere that I can see. > Based on this: > > http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html > > "Changeset pushes before the Feature Complete require at least one > Reviewer; pushes after the Feature Complete require at least two Reviewers. > In either case, the more the merrier. Some teams may require more > Reviewers. Check with members of the Project." > > we need two Reviewers after FC, but I don't think anyone has been aware of > and enforcing that! > > David > ----- > > > Andrew. >> >>
