Egor Pasko wrote:
On the 0x201 day of Apache Harmony Rana Dasgupta wrote:
I think that over time, we will start seeing IPF specific code files
appearing ... eg., quite a different jit, IPFhelpers.cpp,
IPFexception_filters.cpp, IPFnativestack.cpp, IPFprofiledrivers.cpp etc.
That is my impression of how most IPF ports go. Even in the main codebase
they will virtually be a branch. While they are architecturally quite
seperate, they are seperate enough to maybe not cause a lot of conflict.
So the question is really one of how we want to manage this, and if we want
to consider the IPF work as mainline work or secondary. That is my
understanding. I am fine with Geir's choice, and his comment about it being
easier to manage one codeline makes sense. But I would request leaving this
open for some more comments from the jit guys and others before we decide.
Actually, I am +1 to Geir. Let's face the problems not earlier than
they appear. When Geir becomes overwhelmed with IPF patches, we may
reconsider it to a separate branch. Premature optimization is the root
of all evil :)
Unless you are a JIT
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
