Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Well, maintaining this "buffer" forest is, more or less, what IcedTea does.
>> I'm not sure that we need another one.
>
> I wasn't suggesting we start a new buffer forest.
> I was suggesting w
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Well, maintaining this "buffer" forest is, more or less, what IcedTea does.
> I'm not sure that we need another one.
I wasn't suggesting we start a new buffer forest.
I was suggesting we (Google + IcedTea)
consider shar
Andrew.
Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was
required
for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugTraq CR
for this issue, even though it is just a modification of a recent fix.
I didn't see
a new CR get
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> I'm going to change langtools/jaxp/jaxws to
>>
>> ifeq ($(DEBUG_CLASSFILES), true)
>> ANT_OPTIONS += -Djavac.debug=true
>> ANT_OPTIONS += -Djavac.debuglevel=source,lines,vars
>> endif
>
> Yes. If all you want to do is to provide a consistent wa
Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 06:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have be
