Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

8269513: Clarify the spec wrt useOldISOCodes system property #163

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

@naotoj
Copy link
Member

@naotoj naotoj commented Jun 28, 2021

Please review this small doc change to the system property. Accompanying CSR has also been created.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8269513: Clarify the spec wrt useOldISOCodes system property

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17 pull/163/head:pull/163
$ git checkout pull/163

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/163
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17 pull/163/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 163

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 163

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/163.diff

@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

@naotoj naotoj commented Jun 28, 2021

/csr

Loading

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 28, 2021

👋 Welcome back naoto! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2021

@naotoj this pull request will not be integrated until the CSR request JDK-8269531 for issue JDK-8269513 has been approved.

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2021

@naotoj The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs
  • i18n

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

Loading

@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Jun 28, 2021

Loading

Copy link
Contributor

@LanceAndersen LanceAndersen left a comment

Looks good Naoto

Loading

bplb
bplb approved these changes Jun 28, 2021
Copy link
Member

@bplb bplb left a comment

Looks fine.

Loading

* so the later call to {@code System.setProperty()} won't affect the backward
* back to that of before Java SE 17. If the system property is set to
* {@code true}, those three current language codes are mapped to their
* backward compatible forms. It is only read at Java runtime startup, so a
Copy link
Contributor

@LanceAndersen LanceAndersen Jun 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had thought about some of some minor word smithing in your prior commit, but chose not to request a change.

In the above sentence, It could be clearer what "It" is. Perhaps something along the lines of:

This property is only read at Java runtime startup and subsequents calls to ...."

Loading

Copy link
Member

@JoeWang-Java JoeWang-Java Jun 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, "backward compatible behavior" maybe not need to be repeated, e.g. "subsequent calls to ... will have no effect.

"back to that of before Java SE 17" -- "of" may be removed.

Loading

* so the later call to {@code System.setProperty()} won't affect the backward
* back to that of before Java SE 17. If the system property is set to
* {@code true}, those three current language codes are mapped to their
* backward compatible forms. It is only read at Java runtime startup, so a
Copy link
Member

@JoeWang-Java JoeWang-Java Jun 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, "backward compatible behavior" maybe not need to be repeated, e.g. "subsequent calls to ... will have no effect.

"back to that of before Java SE 17" -- "of" may be removed.

Loading

@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

@naotoj naotoj commented Jun 28, 2021

Thanks. I updated the PR and CSR accordingly. As to removing "of", I think the current form is fine, but I am not a native English speaker, so happy to correct it if it is wrong.

Loading

@JoeWang-Java
Copy link
Member

@JoeWang-Java JoeWang-Java commented Jun 28, 2021

Thanks for the update. As for "of", apparently the native speakers were fine with it ;-)

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot removed the csr label Jun 30, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 30, 2021

@naotoj This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8269513: Clarify the spec wrt `useOldISOCodes` system property

Reviewed-by: lancea, bpb, iris, joehw

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 24 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0dc65d3: 8268897: [TESTBUG] compiler/compilercontrol/mixed/RandomCommandsTest.java must not fail on Command.quiet
  • 3826012: 8268557: Module page uses unstyled table class
  • 2b17e95: 8269691: ProblemList sun/management/jdp/JdpDefaultsTest.java on Linux-aarch64
  • 1da5d4b: 8269486: CallerAccessTest fails for non server variant
  • be0ac92: 8269614: [s390] Interpreter checks wrong bit for slow path instance allocation
  • 4b4bef4: 8269594: assert(_handle_mark_nesting > 1) failed: memory leak: allocating handle outside HandleMark
  • 4ee400a: 8268320: Better error recovery for broken patterns in switch
  • ca283c3: 8265907: JVM crashes when matching VectorMaskCmp Node
  • c3c9189: 8269141: Switch statement containing pattern case label element gets in the loop during execution
  • 6b64a79: 8268350: Remove assert that ensures thread identifier remains the same
  • ... and 14 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/compare/8d09596f270c822b867d38a5462ec62c613f1d0e...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Jun 30, 2021
@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

@naotoj naotoj commented Jun 30, 2021

/integrate

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 30, 2021

Going to push as commit 3e02224.
Since your change was applied there have been 24 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0dc65d3: 8268897: [TESTBUG] compiler/compilercontrol/mixed/RandomCommandsTest.java must not fail on Command.quiet
  • 3826012: 8268557: Module page uses unstyled table class
  • 2b17e95: 8269691: ProblemList sun/management/jdp/JdpDefaultsTest.java on Linux-aarch64
  • 1da5d4b: 8269486: CallerAccessTest fails for non server variant
  • be0ac92: 8269614: [s390] Interpreter checks wrong bit for slow path instance allocation
  • 4b4bef4: 8269594: assert(_handle_mark_nesting > 1) failed: memory leak: allocating handle outside HandleMark
  • 4ee400a: 8268320: Better error recovery for broken patterns in switch
  • ca283c3: 8265907: JVM crashes when matching VectorMaskCmp Node
  • c3c9189: 8269141: Switch statement containing pattern case label element gets in the loop during execution
  • 6b64a79: 8268350: Remove assert that ensures thread identifier remains the same
  • ... and 14 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/compare/8d09596f270c822b867d38a5462ec62c613f1d0e...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 30, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated label Jun 30, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 30, 2021

@naotoj Pushed as commit 3e02224.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Loading

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
5 participants