Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
repository? A merge of trunk to the fortran-experiments branch
generated 70 conflicts that I need to resolve. This is a complete
waste of time that would have been spent towards cutting a diff
of the branch against trunk for patch
Steve Kargl wrote:
Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
repository?
It is due to a couple of factors:
We are now using an java -> class compiler (ecj) that is written in
java. The creates a bootstrap problem in that java files cannot be
compiled until the compile
Steve Kargl writes:
> Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
> repository? A merge of trunk to the fortran-experiments branch
> generated 70 conflicts that I need to resolve. This is a complete
> waste of time that would have been spent towards cutting a diff
> of
On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Steve Kargl writes:
Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
repository? A merge of trunk to the fortran-experiments branch
generated 70 conflicts that I need to resolve. This is a complete
waste of time that would have b
On 6/5/07 12:28 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
> repository? A merge of trunk to the fortran-experiments branch
> generated 70 conflicts that I need to resolve.
You should not have conflicts in libjava. You may have botched a merger
ear
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 08:29 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> You should not have conflicts in libjava. You may have botched a merger
> earlier. I never ran into this with the branches I've maintained. Try
> copying libjava out of trunk again.
Out of interest, what happens if you have svn file pro
On 6/6/07, Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 08:29 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> You should not have conflicts in libjava. You may have botched a merger
> earlier. I never ran into this with the branches I've maintained. Try
> copying libjava out of trunk again.
O
