On 2018-06-14 13:03, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/06/2018 11:50, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
Hi everybody,
I re-proposed the CSR with the changed API.
The CSR is associated with the original change-set that was pushed a
few months so the simplest is to just create a follow-up CSR that is
linked to th
On 14/06/2018 12:08, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
Sorry, everybody it seems, that I completely messed things up :-((
@Alan can you help me getting that back in order again?
Sure.
BTW: I should have mentioned that the main workaround that people are
using is to edit the CSR as that allows you to a
Sorry, everybody it seems, that I completely messed things up :-((
@Alan can you help me getting that back in order again?
-Patrick
On 2018-06-14 13:03, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/06/2018 11:50, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
Hi everybody,
I re-proposed the CSR with the changed API.
The CSR is
On 14/06/2018 11:50, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
Hi everybody,
I re-proposed the CSR with the changed API.
The CSR is associated with the original change-set that was pushed a few
months so the simplest is to just create a follow-up CSR that is linked
to the new bug.
Somehow I'm not able to ad
Hi everybody,
I re-proposed the CSR with the changed API. Somehow I'm not able to add
the comment explaning the change. (Tried both in proposed and draft
state) :-(
I also updated the webrev to represent the two small changes as proposed
from Brian.
-Patrick
On 2018-06-13 23:16, Brian Bu
Hi Roger,
Thanks for pointing this out: simpler and cleaner.
Brian
On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> For the CSR, the easiest path to clarify the spec is to withdraw the CSR,
> update the spec,
> and add a note on the revised behavior.
>
> Then finalize the CSR again. That's
Hi Patrick,
Yes, looks good to me too.
For the CSR, the easiest path to clarify the spec is to withdraw the
CSR, update the spec,
and add a note on the revised behavior.
Then finalize the CSR again. That's enough to get it reviewed and approved.
(Using a new CSR would just spread the behavi
Hi Patrick,
Not part of your change, but I noticed that at line 66 of Reader.java there is
an extra parenthesis after ready().
In the test, the bug ID at line 39 could simply be appended to line 38.
Otherwise looks good although I suppose given the specification update you’ll
need an approved
