On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:32:55 GMT, Doug Simon wrote:
>> The Graal code base has
>> [renamed](https://github.com/oracle/graal/commit/1e41203d10db321f86723eac90f6cd0573b08b33)
>> its module to `jdk.compiler.graal` as part of preparations for Project
>> Galahad. Due to the way Java modules work, t
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:45:50 GMT, Doug Simon wrote:
>> The Graal code base has
>> [renamed](https://github.com/oracle/graal/commit/1e41203d10db321f86723eac90f6cd0573b08b33)
>> its module to `jdk.compiler.graal` as part of preparations for Project
>> Galahad. Due to the way Java modules work, t
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:35:54 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> Consider a simple module, like:
>
> module test {}
>
>
> And compile it with JDK 22 and JDK 21 using:
> javac --release 21
>
> The results of the compilations will differ: when compiling with JDK 21, the
> mandated java.base dependency wi
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 20:01:02 GMT, Christine Flood wrote:
> We'd like to propose to push now, and tackle/fix the single-gen issue you
> identified during RDP1, as well as any other significant single-gen
> regressions that may come up. We have four Shen experts on board, Roman,
> Aleksey, Kelvin
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:42:32 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Please review this simple PR.
Removing `@revised` tags is not a substantive change, so I wouldn’t update the
copyright year as you have in some of these files.
Otherwise, this looks fine.
-
Marked as reviewed by mr (Lead).
P
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:42:32 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Please review this simple PR.
You can leave the copyright years as-is.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15382#issuecomment-1688104170
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:54:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with five
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Better handle patched modules
>>
>>Also add a test which ensures that module patching (if present), will
>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:29:52 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't
>> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink.
>> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK
>>
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 19:20:11 GMT, George Adams wrote:
>> Currently the [security tab](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/security) on the
>> GitHub repos is empty with no clear information or links on where to report
>> security vulnerabilities.
>>
>> > src="https://github.com/user-attachments/ass
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 06:28:18 GMT, George Adams wrote:
>> Currently the [security tab](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/security) on the
>> GitHub repos is empty with no clear information or links on where to report
>> security vulnerabilities.
>>
>> > src="https://github.com/user-attachments/ass
On Tue, 20 May 2025 17:14:38 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> First attempt to populate "supplementary docs" with a discussion of the
>> start of release changes. For reference on the idea of supplementary docs,
>> see the thread
>>
>> "Where to put supplementary docs?"
>> https://mail.openjdk.org/pip
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 17:31:39 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Please review a doc-only change to the API overview page to make other specs
>> more discoverable. The following sentence is added at the end of the
>> overview text:
>>
>>> [Related
>>> documents](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/82
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:53:40 GMT, Iris Clark wrote:
>> This wording is what we came up with in internal discussion, but certainly
>> open to suggestions. I created this PR to make the process more transparent.
>
> Minimally, I would not refer to the narrative specs which are part of the
> platf
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 13:05:34 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Please review a doc-only change to the API overview page to make other specs
>> more discoverable. The following sentence is added at the end of the
>> overview text:
>>
>>> [Related
>>> documents](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/82
14 matches
Mail list logo
