harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [java6] Approval for patch to LICENSE
Date Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:35:10 GMT
On 17/Dec/2009 09:42, Mark Hindess wrote:
> In message <4B29F72F.50202@gmail.com>, Tim Ellison writes:
>> On 17/Dec/2009 08:58, Mark Hindess wrote:
>>> -1.  This change wasn't missed from a merge as a merge
>>> hasn't happened.  Applying this patch wont fix the other
>>> missing changes and it wont update mergeinfo property.  The
>>> correct fix is to merge /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/trunk to
>>> /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/branches/java6.  I'd like permission to do
>>> this instead?  Any committers approve please?
>> That would bring in lots of changes that have been added since the 5.0
>> stream was unfrozen, so I don't think this is a good idea.
> 
> Lots of changes?  I think you are reading:
> 
>   /repos/asf/harmony/enhancedclasslib/trunk
> 
> but I wrote:
> 
>   /repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/trunk

yes, I was thinking of classlib.

> I've appended the full diff below.  The only commits being merged are:
> 
>   r834381 | hindessm | 2009-11-10 08:15:42 +0000 (Tue, 10 Nov 2009) | 2 lines
> 
>   Fixing Bouncy Castle license version and copyright.
> 
>   r818225 | hindessm | 2009-09-23 20:46:48 +0100 (Wed, 23 Sep 2009) | 9 lines
> 
>   Update make macro in common_resources to match classlib.
>   For everything using the classlib rules.{mk,mak} files:
>     1) Create .pdb or gnu debug files in jdk/lib.
>     2) build directly to appropriate location so no copying is needed.
>   Remove the copying and svn:ignore properties that aren't needed anymore.
>   Replace some jdktools antcalls with depends targets.
>   Added a couple of TODO items to remind me of outstanding things to be
>   fixed.

Good to call these out.  Are they a must fix for 6.0 M1 ... arguably (1)
is important, less so (2).

> There was a third commit (r824047) but that was a horrible conflicting
> merge in the debian packaging and I've already done that manually.
> 
>> I don't see a problem with applying a targeted patch to 6.0 (rather
>> than doing the merge) to bring specific things like this up to date. A
>> later merge will auto-merge the file anyway.
>>
>> However, it sounds like you are disputing Nathan's claim that we
>> actually use BouncyCastle 1.44 in Java 6.  I need to check.
> 
> I think we need the .pdb copying fixes to get the build artifacts
> correct too.  So I'd like to do the complete merge please.

+1

Regards,
Tim


Mime
View raw message