Hi João,
But are you the only one to decide if a patch is included or not in FSF
sources?
I do not see any valid reason not to include a simple and working patch
(even if you have a great plan for the future)!
Tom Tromey has currently commissioned me to review Win32 patches.
Like I said before, I am reluctant to do this now for the reasons I previously
mentioned. What's more, I won't unilaterally decide on something of this
scope because:
- I would want to ensure that the POSIX folks would be okay with a
Win32-only solution to a multiplatform problem.
- I would want someone like Ranjit's, Bryce's or Tom's thumbs-up for this
anyway. I would solicit this advice even if I was the author of the patch.
(You or I could chime in if Bryce or Tom needed details on Win32-specific
issues.)
- This might be too big a change for Stage 3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2003-11/msg00146.html
(Maybe not, though, since so many non-English people are inconvenienced
by this. This is too big a decision for me, however.)
Nevertheless, if you submit a patch to java-patches and get someone like
Tom or Bryce to approve it, I'll happily commit it. I doubt they'll lift a finger, though,
unless it's a real, tested patch.
And as I said before, my offer to put out a custom build based on a
real patch + indication of which codebase still stands.
I will not comment on your other arguments for now... But I do not agree
with some of them.
I welcome all discussion on this subject. I've learned a lot.
-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/