[icedtea-web] RFC: Patch to fix PR778
dbhole at redhat.com
Thu Oct 20 14:57:34 PDT 2011
* Danesh Dadachanji <ddadacha at redhat.com> [2011-10-20 17:48]:
> >Ok for head and 1.1?
> It fails to patch in 1.1 because the changeset that implemented the
> synchronization of this class was never backported:
Hmm, yeah looks like minor changes may be needed to adapt to 1.1.
> Would it be better to backport or to remove the synchronized clauses
> from the patch? From reading the email Denis sent out, it looks
> like backporting was just never brought up. Perhaps that should be
I am not sure why it was not discussed either. Though if I was to guess,
it was probably because Denis thought it was potentially too disruptive
for a stable line.
It has been there for a while now though and given the issue, I think we
should backport the above to 1.1. Thoughts?
More information about the distro-pkg-dev