----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Hughes" <gnu.andrew@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Matthias Klose" <doko@xxxxxxxxxx>, "GCJ-patches" <java-patches@xxxxxxxxxxx>, classpath@xxxxxxx, "Tom Tromey" > <tromey@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:34:49 PM > Subject: Re: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Matthias Klose" <doko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: "GCJ-patches" <java-patches@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx>, classpath@xxxxxxx, "Tom > > > Tromey" <tromey@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:21:45 AM > > > Subject: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2 > > > > > > It looks like this ecj is already used > > > within the Fedora disto, however only locally patched (at least I > > > couldn't > > > find > > > any mail sent to java-patches). > > > > > > > My bad. I honestly didn't have any idea what the upstream process would > > be. > > My > > history in the free java world starts after openjdk/icedtea, so all the gcj > > fluff isn't really known well to me, and I don't really know where to look > > for > > information (pointers appreciated! :D ). So I sort of let it slip > > through > > the cracks. > > > > I did bring it up on an earlier thread[1], and it seems like by accident it > > also went to java-patches. Now I know for next time, if and when there is > > a > > next time. > > > > Don't feel bad, Jon. It's not your fault. I was around for "the gcj fluff" > (perhaps wording it better would be a good idea though) and I still have no > idea how this is updated, despite asking on this list at least once. > > And to be honest, I still don't. > Hah, ok then hopefully those that *do* know their way around can offer up a pointer to some documentation (possibly preceded by creating and publishing said documentation) :) Just to make sure, I don't mean "fluff" in a derogatory sense at all! Rather, I thank the forebearers of the free java community for doing all that great work. It's just that now, since there is very little active work on those bits (as I understand it because there is very little need for active work), I haven't had the opportunity to learn the ins and outs, and so it all seems like a big black box to me, such that I fall back on speaking of it in generic terms like "fluff" by which I mean just "stuff", not at all "inconsequential". cheers, jon
