need code review for Logging API JavaDoc change (6949710)

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

Thanks Joe!

Dan


On 9/22/2010 10:50 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Hi Dan.
>
> Approved to go back; current build is b21.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
> Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> Do you want this JavaDoc fix in OpenJDK6? Andrew has reviewed it
>> for OpenJDK6 and OpenJDK7. (David Holmes reviewed it for JDK6_23).
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 9/22/2010 6:27 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> On 17:10 Tue 21 Sep     , Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On 9/21/2010 4:51 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On 14:34 Tue 21 Sep     , Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in need of a couple of code reviews for a JavaDoc change
>>>>>> in the Logging APIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the URL for the OpenJDK6 version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6949710-webrev/1-openjdk6/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OpenJDK6 version of the fix exactly matches the JDK6_23
>>>>>> version of the fix that I sent to the confidential aliases
>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the URL for the OpenJDK7 version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6949710-webrev/1-openjdk7/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OpenJDK7 version of the fix has one less wording addition
>>>>>> because the affected paragraph was removed in OpenJDK7; the
>>>>>> paragraph was virtually identical to another paragraph a little
>>>>>> later in the same class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Both look ok to me.
>>>>>         
>>>> Thanks! I'm pretty sure I need a thumbs up from Joe
>>>> for the OpenJDK6 version...
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> No problem!
>>>
>>> You're right, you do need Joe's approval for 6, but you can push it 
>>> to 7 with me as reviewer.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>   
>