FYI: request backports for 8239091, 8238942, 8224109 and 8214481

Langer, Christoph christoph.langer at sap.com
Mon Apr 6 19:05:12 UTC 2020


Hi Mario,

thanks for being cautious here.

Looking at this change, however, it's hard to believe that it can have any functional effect, unless you had set your FREETYPE_PROPERTIES variable to the exact string "interpreter-version".

Shall I withdraw the approval flags or do you just need a bit of time for further testing?

Cheers
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
> Sent: Montag, 6. April 2020 19:16
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> Cc: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>; Andrew Haley
> <aph at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: FYI: request backports for 8239091, 8238942, 8224109 and
> 8214481
> 
> I'm going to retire 8239091 from this list for now, I did more testing
> and I can see some rendering artifacts in some cases, and I can't
> figure out why just yet, I can't see any obvious difference in the
> code so it may be caused by some other changes.
> 
> The other patches are fine however so far.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mario
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:04 PM Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mario
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:58 PM Langer, Christoph
> > <christoph.langer at sap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mario,
> > >
> > > I think all of these fixes are good for backporting to JDK11 Updates. So
> they are approved now.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Christoph
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Freitag, 3. April 2020 15:03
> > > > To: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > > > Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>; Langer, Christoph
> > > > <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> > > > Subject: FYI: request backports for 8239091, 8238942, 8224109 and
> 8214481
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I marked the bugs in $subject for backport in 11u-dev, they are kind
> > > > of related so I would like to backport the full batch in one go if
> > > > approved.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still thinking if it's a good idea to backport them to 8 too, the
> > > > bugs are present though so I may as well do it, but I'll send a
> > > > separate mail for this.
> > > >
> > > > There is another reason I send this email though, 8214481 and 8224109
> > > > do affect rendering. 8214481 seems mostly harmless but 8224109 does
> > > > change the result of the affine transform. The current transform is
> > > > wrong though, so I would expect that the ones who noticed would be
> > > > happy about getting a fix but if they have workarounds in their code
> > > > it will invalidate those, so I understand if we want to only ship
> > > > those fixes in a major version and not in an update.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mario Torre
> > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > > > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mario Torre
> > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mario Torre
> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898



More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list