<AWT Dev> jcheck conflict in jdk8/tl/jdk and awt repos: same CR # 7100054 used in two different changesets (one in tl, the other in awt forest)
neil.richards at ngmr.net
Thu Oct 27 03:57:20 PDT 2011
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:34 +0100, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 25/10/2011 01:21, Lana Steuck wrote:
> > To: TL and Awt teams
> > What: we have a jcheck conflict in jdk8/tl/jdk and jdk8/awt/jdk
> > repos:
> > same Bugid # 7100054 used in two different changesets (one in
> > tl/jdk, the other in awt/jdk repo)
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/f218e6bdf1e8
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c3da0672a882
> > neil.richards at ngmr.net
> > 7100054: (porting) Native code should include fcntl.h and unistd.h
> > rather than sys/fcntl.h and sys/unistd.h
> > Summary: Use POSIX defined includes for unistd.h and fcntl.h
> I think I may be partly to blame here. Neil did ask whether he needed
> a separate CR for the AWT change and I told him () that one was
> sufficient. I didn't realize he was thinking of splitting the changes
> though as there wasn't any real need to do this for this.
I'm sorry for the confusion here.
The review of the AWT part of the change went down a different path
(onto a different mailing list) to the core-libs part, and as AWT has
its own component repository, it seemed to make most sense to me to
commit the core-libs bit to the core-libs component repo, and the AWT
bit to the AWT repo.
Hence why I asked about whether I needed one bug id or two. I obviously
didn't make the correct inference from Alan's reply (that I should
commit all the change into one repo).
I'm sorry this caused a problem.
Please let me know what I can do in helping to rectify things.
Unless stated above:
IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the awt-dev