From dbhole at redhat.com  Wed Aug 10 11:56:11 2011
From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:56:11 -0400
Subject: Request to backport 6908259: Covariance bug for multiple interface
	inheritance
Message-ID: <20110810185611.GC20852@redhat.com>

Hi,

We have encountered a compilation issue with OpenJDK6 that is fixed in
OpenJDK7. To that end, I would like to backport this changeset to OpenJDK6:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/raw-rev/4a3b9801f7a0

author	mcimadamore
changeset 50	4a3b9801f7a0
parent 49	8bc2ca2a3b0a
child 51	29d2485c1085

6294779: Problem with interface inheritance and covariant return types
Summary: Problematic overriding check when two methods defined in two distinct superinterfaces are overriden by an interface
Reviewed-by: jjg

Okay to push?

Cheers,
Deepak

From dbhole at redhat.com  Wed Aug 10 13:59:21 2011
From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:59:21 -0400
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
Message-ID: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>

Hi,

I would like to backport the following fixes from OpenJDK7 to OpenJDK6:

--

6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0

changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
user:        weijun
date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
Kerberos library

--

6979329: CCacheInputStream fails to read ticket cache files from Kerberos 1.8.1:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/c1734c00a8ba

changeset:   3122:c1734c00a8ba
user:        weijun
date:        Mon Nov 22 09:43:58 2010 +0800
summary:     6979329: CCacheInputStream fails to read ticket cache files
from Kerberos 1.8.1

--

I had to update the copyright headers to apply it correctly. Updated
webrevs:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbhole/6815182-JDK6.00/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbhole/6979329-JDK6.00/

Okay to push?

Cheers,
Deepak

From schlosna at gmail.com  Thu Aug 11 06:12:11 2011
From: schlosna at gmail.com (David Schlosnagle)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:12:11 -0400
Subject: Proposed javac argument processing performance improvement
In-Reply-To: <4E3C4B68.30808@oracle.com>
References: <BANLkTi=539M2pBtJUDALx8gXuwW55L992A@mail.gmail.com>
	<84BF5FA0-C56C-4028-84DF-A7111B99C062@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikg9xar+o3+SB5v3jpQBmt7ocrr-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DF7EFF6.2030300@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikXPA5HT5KFXxs6j9oiuay4F9iWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DFAD1F4.8090503@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTin74GV4oEzrQXq8-ho6FEmnKsrWBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E04EB7A.1030804@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTikUitsxWm7B3-BCfc4J_-B60bkE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E04FCF2.9000303@oracle.com> <4E3C4B68.30808@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAGVnyzQ9JNwrK-d2_+-ytQsopwA+p-JQEJmD30Gay+U3J_-s1A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
<jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:
> I note that notifications aren't happening, but I see that this patch has
> just arrived in the 7 update train. (It's already in 8.)
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/langtools/

Excellent, thanks Jon and Jim for pushing this through. I see it also
made it into the main
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u/langtools/. Is there anything I
can do to help get this back ported to OpenJDK 6 (and ideally JDK 6)?

Thanks,
Dave

From dbhole at redhat.com  Thu Aug 11 07:49:14 2011
From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:49:14 -0400
Subject: Request to backport 6908259: Covariance bug for multiple
	interface inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20110810185611.GC20852@redhat.com>
References: <20110810185611.GC20852@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110811144914.GK20852@redhat.com>

Hi,

This one didn't show up in my inbox for some reason :/ 

Resending..

* Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com> [2011-08-10 14:56]:
> Hi,
> 
> We have encountered a compilation issue with OpenJDK6 that is fixed in
> OpenJDK7. To that end, I would like to backport this changeset to OpenJDK6:
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/raw-rev/4a3b9801f7a0
> 
> author	mcimadamore
> changeset 50	4a3b9801f7a0
> parent 49	8bc2ca2a3b0a
> child 51	29d2485c1085
> 
> 6294779: Problem with interface inheritance and covariant return types
> Summary: Problematic overriding check when two methods defined in two distinct superinterfaces are overriden by an interface
> Reviewed-by: jjg
> 
> Okay to push?
> 
> Cheers,
> Deepak

From joe.darcy at oracle.com  Tue Aug 16 18:15:00 2011
From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe.darcy at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:15:00 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 6908259: Covariance bug for multiple interface
	inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20110810185611.GC20852@redhat.com>
References: <20110810185611.GC20852@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4E4B1614.50106@oracle.com>

Hello.

On 8/10/2011 11:56 AM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have encountered a compilation issue with OpenJDK6 that is fixed in
> OpenJDK7. To that end, I would like to backport this changeset to OpenJDK6:
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/raw-rev/4a3b9801f7a0
>
> author	mcimadamore
> changeset 50	4a3b9801f7a0
> parent 49	8bc2ca2a3b0a
> child 51	29d2485c1085
>
> 6294779: Problem with interface inheritance and covariant return types
> Summary: Problematic overriding check when two methods defined in two distinct superinterfaces are overriden by an interface
> Reviewed-by: jjg
>
> Okay to push?
>
> Cheers,
> Deepak
>   

This change isn't in the 6 update train and I think it would be helpful 
to get Maurizio's input on whether the patch is suitable for OpenJDK 6.

-Joe

From ionionascu at gmail.com  Wed Aug 17 02:58:26 2011
From: ionionascu at gmail.com (Ion Ionascu)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:26 +0100
Subject: Transient variable in non-serializable class
Message-ID: <CAOtF99oBx_4ErUZvDiqoDvsyvpfgzYYgSg_wJs7Q_5_ijeQj_A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,


I hope this is the right mailing list to ask the following question.

Could you please explain to me why the variable "discovered" from the class
java.lang.ref.Reference is declared as being transient even though it is a
private variable in a class which doesn't extend the interface Serializable?


Thank you,
Ion Ionascu

www.ionionascu.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20110817/4d8a1a9d/attachment.html 

From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Mon Aug 22 07:59:13 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:59:13 -0700
Subject: Backport 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista
	home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
In-Reply-To: <20110728024829.GN22822@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
References: <20110728024829.GN22822@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
Message-ID: <6B10B8E5-D12F-4B30-A4D6-4AE80E056FD4@oracle.com>

Sorry, been on vacation.

This states that it was fixed in 6u12  "fixed as a part of 6714829-2164627"

I'll CC Dmitry for his comments but my tendency is to approve it unless Dmitry has issues with it,
so I'd give him a week or so to respond and if he doesn't go ahead and push.

-kto

On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to backport
> 
> 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
> 
> to OpenJDK6.  Webrev is here:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk6/6578583/
> 
> This is a prerequisite for backporting 6769607.  In IcedTea6 since 2011-06-09.
> 
> Ok to push?
> -- 
> Andrew :)
> 
> Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> 
> Support Free Java!
> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> http://icedtea.classpath.org
> PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Mon Aug 22 08:00:38 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:00:38 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>

Approved.

-kto

On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I would like to backport the following fixes from OpenJDK7 to OpenJDK6:
> 
> --
> 
> 6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0
> 
> changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
> user:        weijun
> date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
> summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
> Kerberos library
> 
> --
> 
> 6979329: CCacheInputStream fails to read ticket cache files from Kerberos 1.8.1:
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/c1734c00a8ba
> 
> changeset:   3122:c1734c00a8ba
> user:        weijun
> date:        Mon Nov 22 09:43:58 2010 +0800
> summary:     6979329: CCacheInputStream fails to read ticket cache files
> from Kerberos 1.8.1
> 
> --
> 
> I had to update the copyright headers to apply it correctly. Updated
> webrevs:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbhole/6815182-JDK6.00/
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbhole/6979329-JDK6.00/
> 
> Okay to push?
> 
> Cheers,
> Deepak


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Mon Aug 22 08:13:43 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:13:43 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>


Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.

-kto

On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:

>> --
>> 
>> 6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library
>> 
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0
>> 
>> changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
>> user:        weijun
>> date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
>> summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
>> Kerberos library
>> 
>> --

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20110822/040179d4/attachment.html 

From lana.steuck at oracle.com  Mon Aug 22 12:00:55 2011
From: lana.steuck at oracle.com (lana.steuck at oracle.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Auto Reply: jdk6-dev Digest, Vol 44, Issue 4
Message-ID: <61c2dcbf-9812-4d45-8871-46fc31da5107@default>

This is an auto-reply message.

I am away on vacation Thu, Aug 18 - Fri, Aug 26. Back on Mon, Aug 29.

In my absence, please contact:
- Igor Nekrestyanov <igor.nekrestyanov at oracle.com> for any SA Webrobot requests/issues (sa.us.oracle.com)
  (thank you, Igor!!)
- file an Express Ticket for any lab related issues

https://expresssr.oraclecorp.com/myd_sso/ct_expresssr_user.create_sr?p_aste_id=16
  Be sure to put [ILM] at the beginning in the Summary field for faster routing.

If this is urgent, please contact my manager - Jeff Dinkins.

For Jdk8/Jdk7u JCG code freeze and integration dates please refer to the corresponding sections of Jdk SE Home Integration page:
  https://sunspace.sfbay.sun.com/display/JAVASE/Integrations

Regards,
Lana 

From nhoj.patrick at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 12:52:32 2011
From: nhoj.patrick at gmail.com (John Patrick)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:52:32 +0100
Subject: Auto Reply: jdk6-dev Digest, Vol 44, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <61c2dcbf-9812-4d45-8871-46fc31da5107@default>
References: <61c2dcbf-9812-4d45-8871-46fc31da5107@default>
Message-ID: <CAH9u10kNs_DDhvUWD2K_bT3iXGuUrSeoWMhAi5jtmKwaCTcPeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Yet another @oracle.com out of office auto reply

On 22 August 2011 20:00,  <lana.steuck at oracle.com> wrote:
> This is an auto-reply message.
>
> I am away on vacation Thu, Aug 18 - Fri, Aug 26. Back on Mon, Aug 29.
>
> In my absence, please contact:
> - Igor Nekrestyanov <igor.nekrestyanov at oracle.com> for any SA Webrobot requests/issues (sa.us.oracle.com)
> ?(thank you, Igor!!)
> - file an Express Ticket for any lab related issues
>
> https://expresssr.oraclecorp.com/myd_sso/ct_expresssr_user.create_sr?p_aste_id=16
> ?Be sure to put [ILM] at the beginning in the Summary field for faster routing.
>
> If this is urgent, please contact my manager - Jeff Dinkins.
>
> For Jdk8/Jdk7u JCG code freeze and integration dates please refer to the corresponding sections of Jdk SE Home Integration page:
> ?https://sunspace.sfbay.sun.com/display/JAVASE/Integrations
>
> Regards,
> Lana
>

From joe.darcy at oracle.com  Mon Aug 22 18:25:53 2011
From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (Joe Darcy)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:25:53 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 7080038: "(ann) Serializable types in
	sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs" to OpenJDK 6
Message-ID: <4E5301A1.5090107@oracle.com>

Hello.

I hereby request to approval to backport

   7080038: (ann) Serializable types in sun.reflect.annotation do not 
declare serialVersionUIDs
   http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/71e353aba896

to OpenJDK 6.  Some more description of the change is on

   
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-August/007490.html

The problematic fix for 6761678 "(ann) SecurityException in 
AnnotationInvocationHandler.getMemberMethods" has also present in 
OpenJDK 6 since b13:

    http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/762dd71f0008

This means that annotation objects with the correct serialVersionUIDs 
from JDK 5, Sun/Oracle's JDK 6, and OpenJDK 6 b01 through b12 have *not* 
been readable under OpenJDK 6 b13 to present (b23).

Given that to my knowledge this issue has not previously been reported, 
I'm inferring this is not a common usage pattern for annotations.

Operationally, if the fix for 7080038 is applied to in OpenJDK 6 b24, 
that will restore serial compatibility of annotations with OpenJDK 6 b01 
through b12 (and JDK 5, etc.) at the cost of creating a incompatibility 
with b13 through b23.

Since the original accidental change to the serialVersionUID went 
unnoticed, I'm hoping changing it back will also not cause any 
operational difficulties.

Cheers,

-Joe

From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Tue Aug 23 08:25:11 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:25:11 -0700
Subject: Backport 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista
	home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
In-Reply-To: <4E5311FA.7060706@oracle.com>
References: <20110728024829.GN22822@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<6B10B8E5-D12F-4B30-A4D6-4AE80E056FD4@oracle.com>
	<4E5311FA.7060706@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <90B045C8-E43F-4420-A34E-99BF290E1BE1@oracle.com>

Then approved. Thanks.

-kto

On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Dmitry Cherepanov wrote:

> The fix looks fine to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 
> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> Sorry, been on vacation.
>> 
>> This states that it was fixed in 6u12  "fixed as a part of 6714829-2164627"
>> 
>> I'll CC Dmitry for his comments but my tendency is to approve it unless Dmitry has issues with it,
>> so I'd give him a week or so to respond and if he doesn't go ahead and push.
>> 
>> -kto
>> 
>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to backport
>>> 
>>> 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
>>> 
>>> to OpenJDK6.  Webrev is here:
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk6/6578583/
>>> 
>>> This is a prerequisite for backporting 6769607.  In IcedTea6 since 2011-06-09.
>>> 
>>> Ok to push?
>>> -- 
>>> Andrew :)
>>> 
>>> Free Java Software Engineer
>>> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>>> 
>>> Support Free Java!
>>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org
>>> PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
>>> Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37
>>>    
>> 
>>  
> 


From kelly.ohair at oracle.com  Tue Aug 23 08:27:00 2011
From: kelly.ohair at oracle.com (Kelly O'Hair)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:27:00 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 7080038: "(ann) Serializable types in
	sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs" to OpenJDK 6
In-Reply-To: <4E5301A1.5090107@oracle.com>
References: <4E5301A1.5090107@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <DE44CB5D-6E37-42E2-9BBB-5467C1E384D4@oracle.com>

I assume this is being fixed in all releases, if so, approved.

-kto

On Aug 22, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> I hereby request to approval to backport
> 
>  7080038: (ann) Serializable types in sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs
>  http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/71e353aba896
> 
> to OpenJDK 6.  Some more description of the change is on
> 
>  http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-August/007490.html
> 
> The problematic fix for 6761678 "(ann) SecurityException in AnnotationInvocationHandler.getMemberMethods" has also present in OpenJDK 6 since b13:
> 
>   http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/762dd71f0008
> 
> This means that annotation objects with the correct serialVersionUIDs from JDK 5, Sun/Oracle's JDK 6, and OpenJDK 6 b01 through b12 have *not* been readable under OpenJDK 6 b13 to present (b23).
> 
> Given that to my knowledge this issue has not previously been reported, I'm inferring this is not a common usage pattern for annotations.
> 
> Operationally, if the fix for 7080038 is applied to in OpenJDK 6 b24, that will restore serial compatibility of annotations with OpenJDK 6 b01 through b12 (and JDK 5, etc.) at the cost of creating a incompatibility with b13 through b23.
> 
> Since the original accidental change to the serialVersionUID went unnoticed, I'm hoping changing it back will also not cause any operational difficulties.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Joe


From joe.darcy at oracle.com  Tue Aug 23 13:53:07 2011
From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (Joe Darcy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:53:07 -0700
Subject: Request to backport 7080038: "(ann) Serializable types in
	sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs" to OpenJDK 6
In-Reply-To: <DE44CB5D-6E37-42E2-9BBB-5467C1E384D4@oracle.com>
References: <4E5301A1.5090107@oracle.com>
	<DE44CB5D-6E37-42E2-9BBB-5467C1E384D4@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4E541333.6040505@oracle.com>

Hi Kelly.

Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> I assume this is being fixed in all releases, if so, approved.
>   

Correct; I've already pushed the fix to 7 update and JDK 8 and the 
sustaining team will be applying the fix to the 6 update train.  I'll do 
the push to OpenJDK 6 later today.

Thanks,

-Joe

> -kto
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
>   
>> Hello.
>>
>> I hereby request to approval to backport
>>
>>  7080038: (ann) Serializable types in sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs
>>  http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/71e353aba896
>>
>> to OpenJDK 6.  Some more description of the change is on
>>
>>  http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-August/007490.html
>>
>> The problematic fix for 6761678 "(ann) SecurityException in AnnotationInvocationHandler.getMemberMethods" has also present in OpenJDK 6 since b13:
>>
>>   http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/762dd71f0008
>>
>> This means that annotation objects with the correct serialVersionUIDs from JDK 5, Sun/Oracle's JDK 6, and OpenJDK 6 b01 through b12 have *not* been readable under OpenJDK 6 b13 to present (b23).
>>
>> Given that to my knowledge this issue has not previously been reported, I'm inferring this is not a common usage pattern for annotations.
>>
>> Operationally, if the fix for 7080038 is applied to in OpenJDK 6 b24, that will restore serial compatibility of annotations with OpenJDK 6 b01 through b12 (and JDK 5, etc.) at the cost of creating a incompatibility with b13 through b23.
>>
>> Since the original accidental change to the serialVersionUID went unnoticed, I'm hoping changing it back will also not cause any operational difficulties.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Joe
>>     
>
>   


From joe.darcy at oracle.com  Tue Aug 23 14:02:50 2011
From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe.darcy at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:02:50 +0000
Subject: hg: jdk6/jdk6/jdk: 7080038: (ann) Serializable types in
	sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs
Message-ID: <20110823210311.7C4BE47044@hg.openjdk.java.net>

Changeset: aa53990522cf
Author:    darcy
Date:      2011-08-23 14:01 -0700
URL:       http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/aa53990522cf

7080038: (ann) Serializable types in sun.reflect.annotation do not declare serialVersionUIDs
Reviewed-by: alanb

! src/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationInvocationHandler.java
! src/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationTypeMismatchExceptionProxy.java
! src/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/EnumConstantNotPresentExceptionProxy.java
! src/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/TypeNotPresentExceptionProxy.java


From ahughes at redhat.com  Wed Aug 24 07:09:57 2011
From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:57 +0100
Subject: Backport 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows
	vista home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
In-Reply-To: <90B045C8-E43F-4420-A34E-99BF290E1BE1@oracle.com>
References: <20110728024829.GN22822@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<6B10B8E5-D12F-4B30-A4D6-4AE80E056FD4@oracle.com>
	<4E5311FA.7060706@oracle.com>
	<90B045C8-E43F-4420-A34E-99BF290E1BE1@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20110824140957.GP9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>

On 08:25 Tue 23 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Then approved. Thanks.
> 
> -kto
> 
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Dmitry Cherepanov wrote:
> 
> > The fix looks fine to me.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dmitry
> > 
> > Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >> Sorry, been on vacation.
> >> 
> >> This states that it was fixed in 6u12  "fixed as a part of 6714829-2164627"
> >> 
> >> I'll CC Dmitry for his comments but my tendency is to approve it unless Dmitry has issues with it,
> >> so I'd give him a week or so to respond and if he doesn't go ahead and push.
> >> 
> >> -kto
> >> 
> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> >> 
> >>  
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> I'd like to backport
> >>> 
> >>> 6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
> >>> 
> >>> to OpenJDK6.  Webrev is here:
> >>> 
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk6/6578583/
> >>> 
> >>> This is a prerequisite for backporting 6769607.  In IcedTea6 since 2011-06-09.
> >>> 
> >>> Ok to push?
> >>> -- 
> >>> Andrew :)
> >>> 
> >>> Free Java Software Engineer
> >>> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> >>> 
> >>> Support Free Java!
> >>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
> >>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> >>> http://icedtea.classpath.org
> >>> PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> >>> Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37
> >>>    
> >> 
> >>  
> > 
> 

Thanks.  Pushed.
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

From ahughes at redhat.com  Wed Aug 24 07:11:13 2011
From: ahughes at redhat.com (ahughes at redhat.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:11:13 +0000
Subject: hg: jdk6/jdk6/jdk: 2 new changesets
Message-ID: <20110824141150.4834547096@hg.openjdk.java.net>

Changeset: dd26806bd6df
Author:    dcherepanov
Date:      2008-03-14 22:00 +0300
URL:       http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/dd26806bd6df

6578583: Regression: Modality is broken in windows vista home premium from jdk1.7 b02 onwards.
Summary: WS_DISABLED style should be used to fix some modality bugs
Reviewed-by: art, son

! src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_Component.cpp
! src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_Dialog.cpp
! src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_Window.cpp
! src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_Window.h
+ test/java/awt/Modal/WsDisabledStyle/CloseBlocker/CloseBlocker.java
+ test/java/awt/Modal/WsDisabledStyle/OverBlocker/OverBlocker.java
+ test/java/awt/Modal/WsDisabledStyle/Winkey/Winkey.java

Changeset: 95ac2f7ddad0
Author:    andrew
Date:      2011-08-24 15:11 +0100
URL:       http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/95ac2f7ddad0

Merge



From ahughes at redhat.com  Thu Aug 25 15:05:57 2011
From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:05:57 +0100
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>

On 08:13 Mon 22 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> 
> Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
> I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
> but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.
> 

This has never been the policy before, to my knowledge.  Why should the proprietary JDK6, 
over which we have no control, be a blocker on bugs for OpenJDK6?  For one thing, there
are significant differences in the code bases, as far as I'm aware.

> -kto
> 
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> 
> >> --
> >> 
> >> 6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library
> >> 
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0
> >> 
> >> changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
> >> user:        weijun
> >> date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
> >> summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
> >> Kerberos library
> >> 
> >> --
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

From dalibor.topic at oracle.com  Thu Aug 25 15:20:41 2011
From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:20:41 +0200
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4E56CAB9.5000603@oracle.com>

On 8/26/11 12:05 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 08:13 Mon 22 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>> Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
>> I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
>> but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.
>>
> 
> This has never been the policy before, to my knowledge.  Why should the proprietary JDK6, 
> over which we have no control, be a blocker on bugs for OpenJDK6?  For one thing, there
> are significant differences in the code bases, as far as I'm aware.

There may be some good reason why the fix wasn't applied to closed6. Or there may not be. It's 
hard to tell without asking first.

cheers,
dalibor topic

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador
Phone: +494023646738 <tel:+494023646738> | Mobile: +491772664192 <tel:+491772664192>
Oracle Java Platform Group

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603

Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

From ahughes at redhat.com  Thu Aug 25 15:26:53 2011
From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:26:53 +0100
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <4E56CAB9.5000603@oracle.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56CAB9.5000603@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20110825222653.GG9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>

On 00:20 Fri 26 Aug     , Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On 8/26/11 12:05 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 08:13 Mon 22 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
> >> I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
> >> but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.
> >>
> > 
> > This has never been the policy before, to my knowledge.  Why should the proprietary JDK6, 
> > over which we have no control, be a blocker on bugs for OpenJDK6?  For one thing, there
> > are significant differences in the code bases, as far as I'm aware.
> 
> There may be some good reason why the fix wasn't applied to closed6. Or there may not be. It's 
> hard to tell without asking first.
> 

Sure, but the implication I got from Kelly's response was not that "it's worth checking up on why
we didn't backport it" but a policy of "backports must be in both".  Changes to proprietary Oracle
products should not be prerequisites for OpenJDK changes.

> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> 
> -- 
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador
> Phone: +494023646738 <tel:+494023646738> | Mobile: +491772664192 <tel:+491772664192>
> Oracle Java Platform Group
> 
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg
> 
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603
> 
> Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven
> 
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

From weijun.wang at oracle.com  Thu Aug 25 18:49:19 2011
From: weijun.wang at oracle.com (Weijun Wang)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:49:19 +0800
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>

I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in the 
sustaining team to work on it.

*Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?

Thanks
Max


On 08/26/2011 06:05 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 08:13 Mon 22 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>> Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
>> I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
>> but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.
>>
>
> This has never been the policy before, to my knowledge.  Why should the proprietary JDK6,
> over which we have no control, be a blocker on bugs for OpenJDK6?  For one thing, there
> are significant differences in the code bases, as far as I'm aware.
>
>> -kto
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0
>>>>
>>>> changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
>>>> user:        weijun
>>>> date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
>>>> summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
>>>> Kerberos library
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>

From dbhole at redhat.com  Fri Aug 26 07:09:50 2011
From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:50 -0400
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20110826140949.GD714@redhat.com>

* Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> [2011-08-25 21:52]:
> I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in
> the sustaining team to work on it.
> 
> *Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?
> 

So does this mean both are approved for commit to OpenJDK6?

Btw, it was this bug that caused me to request it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729502

Graeme works for Red Hat. It looks like he encountered the issue
himself internally, as I don't see any mention of customers.

Cheers,
Deepak

> Thanks
> Max
> 
> 
> On 08/26/2011 06:05 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> >On 08:13 Mon 22 Aug     , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >>Oh wait a minute, please check with Weijun Wang (I will CC) on 6815182.
> >>I'm not seeing any record that this one was fixed in any jdk6 update, it may not apply to it
> >>but it is important that the fixes in openjdk6 are also in the jdk6 updates when it makes sense.
> >>
> >
> >This has never been the policy before, to my knowledge.  Why should the proprietary JDK6,
> >over which we have no control, be a blocker on bugs for OpenJDK6?  For one thing, there
> >are significant differences in the code bases, as far as I'm aware.
> >
> >>-kto
> >>
> >>On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >>>>--
> >>>>
> >>>>6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT Kerberos library
> >>>>
> >>>>http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/9d5cce463fa0
> >>>>
> >>>>changeset:   949:9d5cce463fa0
> >>>>user:        weijun
> >>>>date:        Fri Mar 13 09:20:56 2009 +0800
> >>>>summary:     6815182: GSSAPI/SPNEGO does not work with server using MIT
> >>>>Kerberos library
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>
> >

From ahughes at redhat.com  Sat Aug 27 21:16:43 2011
From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 05:16:43 +0100
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20110828041643.GB31694@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>

On 09:49 Fri 26 Aug     , Weijun Wang wrote:
> I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in the 
> sustaining team to work on it.
> 
> *Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?
> 

I don't have a clue what you mean by this.  Would you care to explain?

> Thanks
> Max
> 
 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

From weijun.wang at oracle.com  Sat Aug 27 21:20:57 2011
From: weijun.wang at oracle.com (Weijun Wang)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:20:57 +0800
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110828041643.GB31694@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com>
	<20110828041643.GB31694@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4E59C229.5060706@oracle.com>



On 08/28/2011 12:16 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 09:49 Fri 26 Aug     , Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in the
>> sustaining team to work on it.
>>
>> *Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?
>>
>
> I don't have a clue what you mean by this.  Would you care to explain?

I mean if there is a a Red Hat customer affected by this bug and filed 
an escalation. Deepak has already answered my question.

Thanks
Max


>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>
>

From weijun.wang at oracle.com  Wed Aug 31 17:34:42 2011
From: weijun.wang at oracle.com (Weijun Wang)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:34:42 +0800
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110831204122.GI14689@redhat.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com> <20110826140949.GD714@redhat.com>
	<20110831204122.GI14689@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4E5ED322.5060705@oracle.com>

FYI: I've asked the sustaining team to backport 6815182 to Oracle Java 
SE 6 update releases, so this is not a blocker anymore.

Note: I'm not the one who can approve anything here.

-Weijun

On 09/01/2011 04:41 AM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Deepak Bhole<dbhole at redhat.com>  [2011-08-26 10:12]:
>> * Weijun Wang<weijun.wang at oracle.com>  [2011-08-25 21:52]:
>>> I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in
>>> the sustaining team to work on it.
>>>
>>> *Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?
>>>
>>
>> So does this mean both are approved for commit to OpenJDK6?
>>
>
> Looks like the above question was missed between the replies..
>
> So is it okay to commit these to OpenJDK6?
>
> Thanks!
> Deepak

From dbhole at redhat.com  Wed Aug 31 13:41:23 2011
From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:41:23 -0400
Subject: Request to backport 2 Kerberos related fixes
In-Reply-To: <20110826140949.GD714@redhat.com>
References: <20110810205921.GD20852@redhat.com>
	<3E1EF457-D1C9-4705-96C9-F078E923CFC9@oracle.com>
	<221E2566-525E-4516-95F1-22987979AB9E@oracle.com>
	<20110825220557.GF9583@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk>
	<4E56FB9F.8080501@oracle.com> <20110826140949.GD714@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110831204122.GI14689@redhat.com>

* Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com> [2011-08-26 10:12]:
> * Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> [2011-08-25 21:52]:
> > I think we can also backport it to Oracle JDK6. Will find someone in
> > the sustaining team to work on it.
> > 
> > *Andrew*: so you have a customer escalation on it?
> > 
> 
> So does this mean both are approved for commit to OpenJDK6?
> 

Looks like the above question was missed between the replies..

So is it okay to commit these to OpenJDK6?

Thanks!
Deepak