harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sian January" <sianjanu...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [tools] Ok to commit HARMONY-5949?
Date Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:07:16 GMT
Thanks Oliver.

Checked in at r686215.

On 15/08/2008, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I support the committing of this patch again, for exactly the same reasons
> as the previous two JIRAs.
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> Sian January wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Will any committer support another check-in for policytool on the same
> > basis as HARMONY-5944 and HARMONY-5927?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/08/2008, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Thanks Oliver - I've committed it at r685108.
> > >
> > > Sian
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/08/2008, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Sian,
> > > >
> > > > I support applying this patch. It should not alter the stability of
> the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > current code base as it is an incomplete tool and a timely commit is
> > > important to close out this GSoC project.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Oliver
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sian January wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to commit another patch for policytool.  As Oliver
> mentioned
> > > > > previously, the tool is incomplete and has no impact on the rest
of
> the
> > > > > Harmony code base.  Also it's the last week of GSoC this week so
it
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > would be
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > helpful to András if we can check it in so he can complete his
> project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > Is
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > there another commiter who will support this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sian
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>
> > > > > Date: 4 Aug 2008 15:58
> > > > > Subject: Re: [tools] Ok to commit HARMONY-5927?
> > > > > To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Mark - I have applied the patch at repo revision r682413.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Oliver
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Hindess wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In message <4896E237.7030806@googlemail.com>,
> Oliver
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > Deakin writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since we're in stability phase, I'm writing to request
committer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > support
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > for committing the patch supplied in HARMONY-5927. It is
a patch
> for
> > > > > > > policytool - since this tool is incomplete, I do not think
this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > patch will
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > cause us any instability for our milestone build. I do
not feel
> that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > this
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > patch needs to be included in the milestone build - i.e.
we can
> keep
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > the
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > milestone at r681495 unless other important patches are
applied
> - as
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > it is
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > part of an incomplete tool. I do feel, however, that it
would be
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > useful for
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > András' progress if we could apply this patch to the repository
> now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any committers support/object to this patch being applied?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you say, there is no need to include this in M7.  However,
if
> we
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > end
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > up committing other changes for the M7 then there is no real
harm
> in
> > > > > > including this change.  So, I see no reason to hold it back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >  Mark.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Deakin
> > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire
> > > PO6 3AU
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Oliver Deakin
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> PO6 3AU
>
>


-- 
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Mime
View raw message