On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:41:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23420 into jdk24?
>
> This proposes to bring in those same backouts into `jdk24` to prevent the
> issue noted in that PR description. jdk24 is in rampdown
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:41:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23420 into jdk24?
>
> This proposes to bring in those same backouts into `jdk24` to prevent the
> issue noted in that PR description. jdk24 is in rampdown
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:41:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23420 into jdk24?
>
> This proposes to bring in those same backouts into `jdk24` to prevent the
> issue noted in that PR description. jdk24 is in rampdown
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:55:56 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> @jaikiran You need to get approval for JDK 24 backport.
Agreed. A approval request has already been raised
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349183?focusedId=14746841&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabp
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:41:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23420 into jdk24?
>
> This proposes to bring in those same backouts into `jdk24` to prevent the
> issue noted in that PR description. jdk24 is in rampdown
Can I please get a review of this backport of
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23420 into jdk24?
This proposes to bring in those same backouts into `jdk24` to prevent the issue
noted in that PR description. jdk24 is in rampdown and this backport will
require an approval. A approval request h
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:43:12 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Thank you Claes and Chen for the reviews. tier1, tier2 and tier3 testing is
> nearing completion without any failures. Could one of you approve that it's
> OK to integrate this trivial backout without waiting for 24 hours (the review
> pro
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:50:23 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> Can you wait for me for a while? I am looking for other solutions that do not
> require a fallback.
The updated fix/change (if any) doesn't have to be rushed and you can take
longer to work on it with additional help and reviews from others
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:04:33 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains two
>> new commit
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:04:33 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> This concurrency problem also exists in the UTF16 scenario, so why only
> change to Latin1 here?
Do you mean there are additional commits that have been done in the JDK which
introduce a similar issue related to array writes beyond their li
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:37:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
>> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>>
>> The comment in the PR review of that issue
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issu
> Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
> introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
>
> The comment in the PR review of that issue
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issuecomment-2628937397 explains
> what the issue is with the c
Can I please get a review of this change which backs out the commit that was
introduced for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8333893?
The comment in the PR review of that issue
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19626#issuecomment-2628937397 explains what
the issue is with the change that w
22 matches
Mail list logo
