> Oh, I agree. I just thought I'd use the opportunity to point out to
> everyone that a) there is some documentation of this and, more
> importantly, b) it needs updating.
Kelly's been following this thread, but I haven't seen the note about
the webrev here. His latest webrev (posted to guide-discuss) removes
the JSN references, don't know if it has addressed your other points:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/guide-discuss/2009-September/000046.html
Also, the JSN gate still exists, but is flagged with "NO LONGER IN USE"
on hg.openjdk.java.net.
Brad
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/9/23 Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com>:
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/9/23 Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com>:
Christopher Hegarty -Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
[cc'ing net-dev]
I see you have push access, so if you make the appropriate changes
(mentioned above) I can review the webrev and you can use the above bug
number and description to push the changeset.
Please make sure you tell Pavel which forest to push to. It's sometimes
hard for us outside Sun to know.
http://openjdk.java.net/guide/repositories.html
Yeah, I know. It's still a good idea for the approver to tell newbie
contributors which forest to push to.
Andrew.
Oh, I agree. I just thought I'd use the opportunity to point out to
everyone that a) there is some documentation of this and, more
importantly, b) it needs updating.
