On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 08:44:29 GMT, Leo Korinth <lkori...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This pull request renames `createJavaProcessBuilder` to >> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` and renames `createTestJvm` to >> `createTestJavaProcessBuilder`. Both are implemented through a private >> `createJavaProcessBuilder`. It also updates the java doc. >> >> This is so that it should be harder to by mistake use >> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` that is problematic because it will >> not forward JVM flags to the tested JVM. > > Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > fix copyright year and indentation Would it be okay if we handle the new method documentation in a separate pull request? After applying your changes, I also noted that the existing description `The command line will be like: {test.jdk}/bin/java {test.vm.opts} {test.java.opts} cmds` is not only incorrect (or at least incomplete), but now also clashes with the added description. I then removed the sentence, but after I did that I also found out that similar wording exist in `executeTestJvm` and I fear that if I continue to pull strings, I will create more and more changes that you will have opinions on. Is it all right if we push what we have now, and that I create a new pull requests with these improvements in documentation that are actually not related to the changes in this pull request? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1781359450