[11u] RFR: 8242154: Backport parts of JDK-4947890 to OpenJDK 11u

[Langer, Christoph]

Thanks, Severin. I'm pushing this now.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com>
> Sent: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 15:51
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [11u] RFR: 8242154: Backport parts of JDK-4947890 to OpenJDK
> 11u
> 
> On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 20:18 +0000, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > Hi Severin,
> >
> > > > > in System.c:
> > > > >
> > > > > -    PUTPROP(props, "java.version", VERSION_SHORT);
> > > > > -    PUTPROP(props, "java.vendor", VENDOR);
> > > > > -    PUTPROP(props, "java.vendor.url", VENDOR_URL);
> > > > > -    PUTPROP(props, "java.vendor.url.bug", VENDOR_URL_BUG);
> > > > > -
> > > > >
> > > > > Aren't you removing "PUTPROP(props, "java.version",
> > > VERSION_SHORT)";
> > > > > too eagerly here?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Well, my point was more about the following: For this partial backport
> > > it should be sufficient to only remove PUTPROP calls for *vendor*
> > > related properties. I.e. this isn't part of 4947890 while the others
> > > are. I agree it shouldn't matter from a functional perspective. It's
> > > just a bit confusing.
> >
> > Ah, I see. This part of the change was already done in an earlier fix
> > to improve startup performance: JDK-8185496. Hm, I think as 8242154
> > is a carveout of JDK-4947890 anyway, I think it's ok to be included.
> > I will, however, reference JDK-8185496 in the bug description of JDK-
> > 8242154, too. Ok with you?
> 
> OK.
> 
> Thanks,
> Severin