RFR: 8134984: Text files should end in exactly one newline

[Volker Simonis]

Hi,

I think I proposed a pretty good solution for the "jcheck" problem
back then in May (see the mailing list thread posted by Chris and the
quote below) and I got two positive reviews from Chris and Magnus.
Unfortunately neither are they "code-tools" reviewers nor am I a
"code-tools" comitter and it seems to be notoriously hard to get a
sponsor from that group :)

Quoting from my previous mail:

I've introduced a new attribute 'check_eof' in .jcheck/conf which
controls the behavior of the new feature:

# Test if we should check for a correct EOF (i.e. files end with
exatly one '\n')
# This behaviour is controlled by the 'check_eof' attribute in the conf file.
# -1 means to not check for EOF at all.
#  0 means to potentially check all the changes for a correct EOF.
#    any other positive number is interpreted as the revision number or change-
#    set ID from which on jcheck should start checking for a correct EOF.
# If the 'check_eof' attribute is missing, '-1' (i.e. no EOF check)
will be assumed.

This way we can change jcheck and add the new EOF checking without
changing its behaviour on any existing, jcheck-enabled repositories.
Afterwards, any single repository can enable the EOF-checking from an
arbitrary changeset on-wards.

Here's the webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2015/7901298.v2/

Is anybody willing to assist sponsoring this change?

Volker





On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com> wrote:
> There was a thread a while back, over on the tools mailing list about the enforcement of this [1].
>
> -Chris.
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hg-tools-dev/2015-May/thread.html <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hg-tools-dev/2015-May/thread.html>
>
>
>> On 2 Sep 2015, at 21:05, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/one-newline/one-newline.patch
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134984
>>
>> Sherman, what's up with repeated A1A4 in IBM1381.c2b?
>