Approval request for 8004316

[Seán Coffey]

Phil,

Yes - people "should" cc relevant parties when such backports are taking 
place. Not mandatory though. Rule 5 in code review guidelines :
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/codereview.html

It's probably a good time to remind OpenJDK 7u contributors to carry out 
such checks where applicable.

> there's basically no justification of the need for a backport
> and I heartily disapprove of backporting  8004316
I can't understand why you're against such a backport. It looks like 
printing functionality is broken on some OSes without this fix. Given 
that Jayashree backported this fix, I hope she can take responsibility 
for any potential regressions that may be encountered.

Regards,
Sean.

On 08/01/2013 17:38, Phil Race wrote:
> I believe the process on requesting a backport is that the 8 code 
> approvers
> need to be CC'd and that the 7 release managers should be enforcing this.
>
> In this email there's basically no justification of the need for a 
> backport
> and I heartily disapprove of backporting  8004316. Its not that important
> and minimally should bake a long time in 8. We do not have resources 
> in 7 to
> deal with regressions.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 1/7/2013 9:03 AM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>> Approved.
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:43 PM, jayashree viswanathan 
>> <jviswana at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would like to get approval for back-porting the fix for 8004316, on 
>>> JDK 7 . The patch is same as JDK 8
>>>
>>> *JDK 7 changeset*
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jviswana/8004316/
>>>
>>> *Mail Thread*
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-December/002900.html
>>>
>>> *JDK 8 bug*
>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004316
>>>
>>> *JDK8 changeset*
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/e8b54ae97344
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Jayashree Viswanathan
>