Re: No entry in Bugzilla for binary compatibility?

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > On Oct 22, 2003, at 8:52 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > 
 > > Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>
 > >> One nice thing about bugzilla is that we can create a master bug for
 > >> a multi-part feature like this, and then make individual bugs for the
 > >> parts, which are dependencies of the main bug.  This makes tracking
 > >> things a little clearer.
 > >
 > > Well, gcc is now in the "bug fixes only" stage, so I guess I need a
 > > bug.  And failure to comply with Chapter 13 is certainly a bug.
 > 
 > For Java we have traditionally interpreted the GCC development stages 
 > somewhat loosely (so long as we don't touch the rest of the compiler, 
 > of course).

I know, but as gcj matures we become more of a fully-fledged part of
gcc.  With that comes naturally a tightening of our processes -- it
used to be that the looseness of the Java requirements was because
Java wasn't important.  It is now.

I'm not saying we should formalize any of this, but a big change to
gcj at this stage needs sound justification.  And I believe Chapter 13
provides one.

Andrew.