harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan Beyer <nbe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [java6] Approval for patch to LICENSE
Date Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:01:04 GMT
On Dec 17, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

Ahhhh! This is a better merge. Than my proposal. I'm fine with the  
whole thing. +1

>
>> 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