This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Java web pages
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Java web pages
- From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:47:10 +1300
- CC: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, GCC Hackers <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Java Discuss List <java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
"Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> > java-announce is like gcc-announce: it is supposed to be low traffic. I'd
> > like to see it stay.
> However, the traffic levels on gcc-announce are hardly likely to overwhelm
> java-announce readers.
Okay, but my concern is do gcc-announce readers care about Java announcements?
Hypothetical examples: "gtk based AWT implementation now available!" or "RMI
now supported in current snapshot". Then again, such announcements are
probably infrequent enough that gcc readers won't mind seeing them, so I don't
care strongly about this.
> Should all Java patches be going to gcc-patches as well as java-patches
> (similar to the policy with libstdc++)?
The existing policy for this is that java compiler patches go to gcc-patches
(only) while runtime patches go to java-patches (only). Rationale: Runtime
patches are unlikely to be of interest to most gcc developers, while front-end
patches might be. Maybe it would be useful to have the compiler patches sent
to both lists however.
[ bryce ]