On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:41:04 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
> > > It's only the combination of a Provider that overrides
> > > getService/getServices + does not call putService/put + overrides
> > > newInstance without calling its parent + uses a non-Java SE service type
> > > that would be unf
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 16 Dec 2024 and was
review
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool
> here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/. As always, I can not confirm the
> correctnes
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:23:55 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>>
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool
>> here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/. As always, I can not confirm the
>> corr
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 09:15:10 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> > It's only the combination of a Provider that overrides
> > getService/getServices + does not call putService/put + overrides
> > newInstance without calling its parent + uses a non-Java SE service type
> > that would be unfiltered
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:20:54 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>>
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool
>> here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/. As always, I can not confirm the
>> corr
> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool
> here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/. As always, I can not confirm the
> correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:57:36 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
> In this small PR, I updated the jarsigner compatibility test to handle the
> difference in default digest algorithms between JDK versions. The previous
> default was SHA-256 but has been updated to SHA-384.
This pull request has now be
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:29:15 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
>> In this small PR, I updated the jarsigner compatibility test to handle the
>> difference in default digest algorithms between JDK versions. The previous
>> default was SHA-256 but has been updated to SHA-384.
>
> Matthew Donovan has up
> In this small PR, I updated the jarsigner compatibility test to handle the
> difference in default digest algorithms between JDK versions. The previous
> default was SHA-256 but has been updated to SHA-384.
Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:05:38 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> updated to use JarSigner.Builder.getDefaultDigestAlgorithm()
>
> test/jdk/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/compatibility/
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:57:36 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
> In this small PR, I updated the jarsigner compatibility test to handle the
> difference in default digest algorithms between JDK versions. The previous
> default was SHA-256 but has been updated to SHA-384.
test/jdk/sun/security/tools/
In this small PR, I updated the jarsigner compatibility test to handle the
difference in default digest algorithms between JDK versions. The previous
default was SHA-256 but has been updated to SHA-384.
-
Commit messages:
- 8346285: Update jarsigner compatibility test for change in
13 matches
Mail list logo
