<AWT Dev> Urgent Request for review: 7035109 Regression: awt SplashScreen/test18.sh fails - missing mapfile entry
philip.race at oracle.com
Sun Apr 10 09:39:27 PDT 2011
I think that there can be times when something is extremely cross-area
and that makes it more of a pain if it can't easily be divided up.
But I completely agree that running the right tests is a vital part of
sure there are no problems. I don't know if that would have happened any
faster in this case.
But so is the review. Code changes that cross areas should also be
review by the relevant teams. Some times that might save pain down
the line. So if you change awt code, send the review to the AWT team (etc).
I expect core libs would like to know if I decided to change something
in java.util :-)
On 4/9/2011 8:08 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
> Approved!. I agree with Alan if a change is to be made in
> a component, it is best that it is pushed to that component's
> forest/repo, where all the necessary/appropriate tests will be
> performed on a nightly basis.
> ----- Alan.Bateman at oracle.com wrote:
>> From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
>> To: David.Holmes at oracle.com
>> Cc: awt-dev at openjdk.java.net, core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2011 1:59:17 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>> Subject: Re: Urgent Request for review: 7035109 Regression: awt SplashScreen/test18.sh fails - missing mapfile entry
>> David Holmes wrote:
>>> Very simple review - the mapfile was missing an entry for a new
>>> method added in 7030063 and caused an UnsatisfiedLinkError
>>> Failing test now passes.
>>> Due to the urgency this will get pushed directly into the TL PIT jdk
>>> repo so that it will be paired with 7030063 and present in b138.
>> There is always a bit of risk pushing AWT or other client area changes
>> to the TL forest as probably very few of us run those tests. The
>> the map file looks good to me.
More information about the awt-dev