jcheck conflict in jdk8/tl/jdk and awt repos: same CR # 7100054 used in two different changesets (one in tl, the other in awt forest)

[Neil Richards]

On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:34 +0100, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 25/10/2011 01:21, Lana Steuck wrote: 
> > To: TL and Awt teams
> > What: we have a jcheck conflict in jdk8/tl/jdk and jdk8/awt/jdk
> > repos: 
> >   same Bugid # 7100054 used in two different changesets (one in
> > tl/jdk, the other in awt/jdk repo)
> > 
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/f218e6bdf1e8
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c3da0672a882
> > 
> > neil.richards at ngmr.net
> > 7100054: (porting) Native code should include fcntl.h and unistd.h
> > rather than sys/fcntl.h and sys/unistd.h
> > Summary: Use POSIX defined includes for unistd.h and fcntl.h
> I think I may be partly to blame here. Neil did ask whether he needed
> a separate CR for the AWT change and I told him ([1]) that one was
> sufficient. I didn't realize he was thinking of splitting the changes
> though as there wasn't any real need to do this for this.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> [1]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-October/007926.html
> 

I'm sorry for the confusion here. 

The review of the AWT part of the change went down a different path
(onto a different mailing list) to the core-libs part, and as AWT has
its own component repository, it seemed to make most sense to me to
commit the core-libs bit to the core-libs component repo, and the AWT 
bit to the AWT repo.

Hence why I asked about whether I needed one bug id or two. I obviously
didn't make the correct inference from Alan's reply (that I should
commit all the change into one repo).

I'm sorry this caused a problem.

Please let me know what I can do in helping to rectify things.

Thanks, Neil

-- 
Unless stated above:
IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU