Brian, Looks good for me (not a reviewer).
-Dmitry On 2013-10-17 20:46, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > Continuing the discussion from > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2013-October/007574.html under > new issue ID: > > Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026806 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8026806/webrev/ > > Thanks, > > Brian > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > >> >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >>> On 17/10/2013 00:21, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >>>> Dmitry, >>>> >>>> I think you are correct: that slipped by both me and the reviewers. I have >>>> reopened the issue and posted an amendment to the original webrev here: >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8010371/webrev.4-amendment/ >>>> >>> I've restored the bug fields and I assume you'll create a new bug for the >>> follow-up. Sorry this was missed in the original review (probably because >>> it went through so many iterations). >>> >>> -Alan. >> >> Yes I will create a new one, thanks. >> >> Brian > -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
