Request for review of JDK-8251548

[David Holmes]

On 18/09/2020 5:15 pm, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Did you not follow these instructions to get your github account
>> connected to your OCA record:
> 
> Those are for "OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer", but I'm only a contributor,
> i.e. I cannot file an issue or commit directly. My previous contributions were shipped as *.patch
> files in mail attachments.

Ah sorry I overlooked that bit.

> Anyway, OCA was approved again and the PR (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/218) is ready for review :)

It wasn't necessary to re-do the OCA, but glad it is now sorted.

David
-----

> Cheers,
> Sergey
> 
> 17.09.2020, 14:11, "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
>> On 17/09/2020 7:24 pm, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>>>   Hi David,
>>>
>>>   thanks for pointing this out!
>>>
>>>   I've created a PR there [1], but GitHub for some reason wants me to sign OCA,
>>>   which I have already signed in 2017. I've redone the procedure and now I'm waiting
>>>   for verification.
>>
>> Did you not follow these instructions to get your github account
>> connected to your OCA record:
>>
>> "If you already are an OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer, please
>> click here[1] to open a new issue so that we can record that fact.
>> Please use "Add GitHub user stsypanov" as summary for the issue."
>>
>> [1]
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/CreateIssue.jspa?pid=11300&issuetype=1
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>>   Regards,
>>>   Sergey
>>>
>>>   1. https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/218
>>>
>>>   17.09.2020, 09:22, "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
>>>>   Hi Sergey,
>>>>
>>>>   Since OpenJDK has moved to git/github, this needs to reformulated as a
>>>>   Pull Request (PR).
>>>>
>>>>   Cheers,
>>>>   David
>>>>
>>>>   On 17/09/2020 5:19 pm, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>>>>>     Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>     is it possible to have a code review for the changes proposed in JDK-8251548?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Sean Mullan has created an issue and web-review and can sponsor the patch
>>>>>     as soos as it gets properly reviewed.
>>>>>
>>>>>     As Doug Lea claims in http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014770.html
>>>>>
>>>>>>     there is never any reason to explicitly initialize fields to 0/0.0/false/null
>>>>>
>>>>>     so I believe the patch is harmless.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251548
>>>>>     Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8251548/
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>     Sergey Tsypanov