At 01:58 PM 9/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
> [Incidentally, I know of 3 JVMs that have been mentioned on this
>list -- John ('pixie') Leuner's 'kissme', Robert Fitzsimmon's 'untitled',
>and Todd L. Miller's decaf -- but only one is in CVS. (Although I checked
>some old logs and discovered that kissme has its own SF project and
>repository. If this suggests that decaf/JJOS should have its/their own
>project, that's fine too...
No. I like the way Tomcat is being handled. Essentially, there's a main
cvs tree with the name tomcat associated with a codebase. When a
"competing" version was proposed, it went in under a new namespace (as a
separate cvs module in the same cvs tree). A vote was taken and the
competing version was voted as being the successor to the current
tomcat. So the old tomcat will remain tomcat3 and the new code will be
renamed and repackaged as tomcat4 and merged into the tree (the 3x just
gets branched off).
Now whether the "competing" versions exist on the same cvs tree or in
separate sourceforge projects should probably be up to the preferences of
the core developers for that project. I don't think it makes much
difference to anyone.
> The cvs repository is on SourceForge, and should be accesible via
>cvs.jos.org. e/m me for more information/whatever. It would certainly
>reduce the impression that decaf was *the* JOS JVM if there were more than
>one of them in the CVS. (Also, Robert, RJK isn't in the CVS.) Having all
>five in CVS would also make it easier to generate a sixth with the best
>from all of them.]
In addition, probably just updating the KernelSummary would help. The
entire website needs some updating but I've just not had the time.
-iain
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
