Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API [v3]

2025-04-25 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:47:15 GMT, Per Minborg wrote: >> This PR proposes to clean up all the imports in the FFM lib (excluding >> tests). >> >> Passes tier1-tier3 > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes th

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API [v3]

2025-01-15 Thread Per Minborg
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 08:55:04 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > Did you also do a pass on microbenchmarks and tests? Or will that be a > separate effort (probably better) ? https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8347814 - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22827#issuecommen

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API [v3]

2025-01-15 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:47:15 GMT, Per Minborg wrote: >> This PR proposes to clean up all the imports in the FFM lib (excluding >> tests). >> >> Passes tier1-tier3 > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes th

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API

2025-01-14 Thread Henry Jen
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:08:11 GMT, Per Minborg wrote: > > Do we have a sense on how easy would it be, moving forward, to preserve the > > "correct" order of imports? E.g. if I add a new one using IntelliJ > > autocompletion, where would it end up? Has this patch been generated using > > the IDE'

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API [v3]

2025-01-09 Thread Per Minborg
> This PR proposes to clean up all the imports in the FFM lib (excluding tests). > > Passes tier1-tier3 Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull requ

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API [v2]

2025-01-09 Thread Per Minborg
> This PR proposes to clean up all the imports in the FFM lib (excluding tests). > > Passes tier1-tier3 Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull requ

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API

2025-01-08 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:02:57 GMT, Per Minborg wrote: > > copyrights should say 2025 > > I believe all the changes were made and committed in 2024. So, shouldn't the > copyright year be 2024 then? I've typically used the year of when things are integrated. It's a bit of a gray area and I'm not

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API

2025-01-08 Thread Per Minborg
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:00:53 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Both alternatives were present and I picked the most prevailing one in the >> package. Also, this is what you get when you auto format in IntelliJ. But if >> there is a preference for the other way, we could switch. No problem. > > I don'

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API

2025-01-08 Thread Per Minborg
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 15:38:51 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > Do we have a sense on how easy would it be, moving forward, to preserve the > "correct" order of imports? E.g. if I add a new one using IntelliJ > autocompletion, where would it end up? Has this patch been generated using > the IDE

Re: RFR: 8346610: Make all imports consistent in the FFM API

2025-01-08 Thread Per Minborg
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 15:37:41 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > copyrights should say 2025 I believe all the changes were made and committed in 2024. So, shouldn't the copyright year be 2024 then? - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22827#issuecomment-2577140833