On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 05:24:28 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> @jaikiran I would concur - back out the change that caused the problem.
Hello David, I have now opened a PR to revert that change
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15118
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15102#i
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:31:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the build
>> failure noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313274?
>>
>> The build failure is consistently reproducible with `--with-jobs=1`. Martin,
>> in that JB
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:01:49 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the build
> failure noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313274?
>
> The build failure is consistently reproducible with `--with-jobs=1`. Martin,
> in that JBS iss
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:30:18 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> It also opens the door to accidental mix 'n match of modules from different
> JDK modules. So I don't think this the right change for this issue.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15102#issuecomment-1660035694
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:01:49 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the build
> failure noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313274?
>
> The build failure is consistently reproducible with `--with-jobs=1`. Martin,
> in that JBS iss
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:01:49 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the build
> failure noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313274?
>
> The build failure is consistently reproducible with `--with-jobs=1`. Martin,
> in that JBS iss
