Backport of 8231991 & 8234107 to 13u, 11u and 8u

[Mario Torre]

Hi Christoph,

Sure thing, thanks!

I'll consider those as approvals for 8u and 11u but I suppose I still need
approval for 13u before proceeding with those?

Cheers,
Mario

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:59 AM Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
wrote:

> Hi Mario,
>
> I completely agree with Andrew here: Please commit the patches as is,
> without folding.
>
> Approving for 11u ��
>
> Cheers
> Christoph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
> > Behalf Of Mario Torre
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. November 2019 18:54
> > To: Andrew John Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>
> > Cc: jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>; jdk-updates-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: Backport of 8231991 & 8234107 to 13u, 11u and 8u
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thanks, this makes sense. I've probably been overly conservative.
> >
> > If approved, I'll commit the patches as they are from 14-dev then.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mario
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 5:22 PM Andrew John Hughes
> > <gnu.andrew at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20/11/2019 15:29, Mario Torre wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to backport 8231991 and 8234107 all the way down to 8u.
> > > >
> > > > The backport is identical for all versions (except the paths in 8u
> > > > obviously), but is slightly different than the patch for 14dev, first
> > > > of all because the two changes have been merged into one, but most
> > > > importantly because I decided against introducing the two new
> constants
> > > > in sun/awt/X11/XConstants.java and instead went to have those values
> > > > directly copied in the code where they are used.
> > > >
> > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/8231991-backport/webrev.00/
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd prefer we just did clean backports of the two bugs. That's what I
> > > already did for 8u locally for our RPMs. I don't see that not adding
> the
> > > two constants does anything but make the fix more obscure. The class is
> > > internal and adds new constants, rather than modifying anything that
> > > exists and users would rely on.
> > >
> > > You could make them package private, but I'd suggest again doing that
> in
> > > all versions.
> > >
> > > If you just backport the two as is, they apply down to 8u, with only
> > > path changes. That makes this review unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --
> > > Andrew :)
> > >
> > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer
> > > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> > >
> > > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
> > > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
> > > https://keybase.io/gnu_andrew
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mario Torre
> > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
>
>

-- 
Mario Torre
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898