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

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Mario,

as for the approvals, you definitely need to monitor the labels in the bug.

I can only approve for 11u (which I have). JDK13u is processed by Oracle (Rob McKenna) and also for 8u I don’t have the powers. You need to wait until one of the Andrews labels the bugs accordingly.

Cheers
Christoph

From: Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 12:55
To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
Cc: Andrew John Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>; 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 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnu.andrew at redhat.com>>
> Cc: jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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