Re: Review request for OPENJDK6-32: OpenJDK6-b31 isn't compatible with Windows platform

[karnaukhovv at gmail.com]

Hello Andrew,


sorry for the late reply.

This header was suggested by our legal, so I’m just following the rules here.






Regards,

- Vlad





From: Andrew Hughes
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎May‎ ‎28‎, ‎2014 ‎18‎:‎52
To: karnaukhovv at gmail.com
Cc: jdk6-dev at openjdk.java.net





----- Original Message -----
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please review the fix for OPENJDK6-32: OpenJDK6-b31 isn't compatible with
> Windows platform
> 
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/OPENJDK6-32/webrev.00/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This fix is a follow-up to threads [1], [2], and [3]. It contains changes
> necessary to upgrade compilers to VisualStudio 2010, as well as changes that
> fix current issues in Windows part of OpenJDK6-b31.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2014-February/003228.html
> 
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2014-April/003270.html
> 
> [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2014-May/003288.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> - Vlad

There doesn't seem to be anything in there that will affect the GNU/Linux build.

Does the licensing addition need to be so verbose? Would not a simple copyright line
suffice? In some cases, it's larger than the actual code additions.

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

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

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20140530/fec9ae53/attachment.html>