Clean-room implementation of Double::toString(double) and Float::toString(float)

[Raffaello Giulietti]

Hi,

my code is now ready to be uploaded to the OpenJDK reps. Currently it 
resides on GitHub and is under the "GPLv2 + Classpath Exception" 
license, with myself as the copyright holder.

I asked Oracle about how the copyright notice should be adapted to meet 
the OCA requirements but, as of today, I got no answer.

Is there any official reference about the copyright notice on OpenJDK 
contributions?


Greetings
Raffaello




On 2018-03-31 00:17, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Hi Raffaello,
> 
> On Mar 30, 2018, at 2:57 PM, raffaello.giulietti at gmail.com 
> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> […]
>>>>
>>>> The new code also has a better specification than the current one, while
>>>> being mostly compatible. Indeed, the current specification leaves room
>>>> for interpretation and thus cannot ensure that an implementation
>>>> produces consistent and unique results from one release to the next. The
>>>> newer spec ensures a unique result.
>>>
>>> Any specification change would need to go through the Compatibility and
>>> Specification Review process. [3]
>>>
>>
>> OK, as you will see, as soon as the code will be uploaded, the only
>> thing that formally affects output is the "1.0E23" versus "9.99....E22"
>> issue. Everything else is worded in such a way to remain compatible but
>> is simply a little bit more rigorous.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>> My wording was misleading: I already got the confirmation that my OCA
>> application has been accepted, so I'm formally ready to contribute.
> 
> That’s good as it gives more time.
> 
>>> Per the JDK 11 schedule [5] there could well be sufficient time to run
>>> this submission through the review processes. I suggest, once your OCA
>>> has been processed, to proceed by posting your proposed changes for
>>> review on this mailing list. Note that in general attachments are
>>> scrubbed, so the patch would need either to be included inline or
>>> published as a webrev [6].
>>>
>>
>> OK, I'll take a look on how the mechanics works.
>>
>> I'm usually on Windows. Are there technical issues with it as far as
>> Webrev is concerned? I mean, I could setup a Linux VM in VirtualBox if
>> this simplifies my life, but I'd prefer continuing my main work in Win.
> 
> As seen in Jon’s posting there are some attachment types which will 
> work. As to webrev, I think it should work on Windows at least in cygwin 
> but I’ve not used it there myself. If it’s just a matter of creating a 
> webrev I could do that on your behalf based on your supplied patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian