Thanks Lance!
Joe
On 5/9/2017 3:54 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Joe,
Definitely reads much better
On May 9, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Brian Burkhalter
mailto:brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Joe,
The verbiage looks good (certainly much better than TODO), but the
new copyright year is now
On 5/9/2017 3:51 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hi Joe,
The verbiage looks good (certainly much better than TODO), but the new
copyright year is now 20017. ;-)
wow, predicting copyright 18,000 years ahead of time, am I :-)
Fixed.
Thanks,
Joe
Thanks,
Brian
On May 9, 2017, at 3:15 PM, huiz
Hi Joe,
Definitely reads much better
> On May 9, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Brian Burkhalter
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> The verbiage looks good (certainly much better than TODO), but the new
> copyright year is now 20017. ;-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
> On May 9, 2017, at 3:15 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi Joe,
The verbiage looks good (certainly much better than TODO), but the new
copyright year is now 20017. ;-)
Thanks,
Brian
On May 9, 2017, at 3:15 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review a fix for stax's package description. This is in a format
> similar to its SAX/DOM/Stream cou
Hi,
Please review a fix for stax's package description. This is in a format
similar to its SAX/DOM/Stream counterparts. For JDK 10, we could
consider converting to package-info.java.
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179868
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8179868/
