> No. Java was removed to reduce the maintenance burden, you can't just > reintroduce the burden and say "hey, I don't want to pay for the burden > so you please do it".
There were two sentences there. You appear to only have read the first one. I just took on 6 years of that maintenance burden in 4 months while teaching myself the gcc tree. I can confirm with absolute certainty that the burden would have been pitiful had java been in the tree. Many of the changes were just idiomatic find and replaces that I had to do myself, tracking down the commit that removed or renamed something, in some cases just silently breaking things so I had to bisect 6 years of changes. If Java had been in the tree, it would have introduced a pitiful additional burden. I can think of around 5 changes that I made that would have required something more than just a sed script, and even then those were very simple changes. I am not suggesting that I wish to shift the overall burden of maintenance away from myself, rather that it would be nice if I did not have to track down breaking commits every 3 months, when the author could have very easily included Java in the changes if it was in the tree. > And we are in stage 3 now so it's not possible to merge 50+ patches > (completely not reviewed in stage 1) until GCC 14 stage 1 opens. On a lighter note, this is fair. I was hoping to make the stage 1 window, but with 2 front-ends already in contention I thought my odds of making it in regardless were poor, and I just didn't have the time to fix the last issues. I've sent these patches now so they can get reviewed now, so that they aren't waiting in review limbo when merging is open again.
