On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:22:47 GMT, Kevin Walls <kev...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Alright, sounds good to me. :) Thanks again for taking a look! >> >>> One other thing - JDK-8226919 looks like the original bug for this, logged >>> a few years back, so if this fixes both, the record should show that it >>> fixes that one, and JDK-8307977 should be closed as a duplicate. I/somebody >>> can take care of that JBS admin. But if this PR could be associated with >>> only JDK-8226919 that would be simple. >> >> I'll still fix this. So, I should change the PR title to match JDK-8226919, >> and issue an `/issue remove` command for JDK-8307977, is that correct? >> >> Once that is done, I would kindly ask for someone sponsoring this change as >> well. > >> I'll still fix this. So, I should change the PR title to match JDK-8226919, >> and issue an `/issue remove` command for JDK-8307977, is that correct? > > Yes exactly, thanks. Thank you @kevinjwalls and @jerboaa for reviewing and guiding me through this process, this was a great as a first-time JDK contributor! One more question, can I do anything to help getting this backported to e.g. 21 and 17? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17628#issuecomment-1936426583
