Re: FYI: Updating makemake (Was: Importing new classpath)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:07 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Mark> What kind of feedback/extra testing do we need before it can be
> Mark> done?
> 
> Where, if anywhere, do we think it is likely to break?

0.19 was tested pretty extensively, but nothing beats production code
like what gcj 4.0 has seen. I don't have any particular worries atm. But
with such a large change it would be foolish to not expect some issues.
The number of bugs this fixes is pretty encouraging though:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=classpath&target_milestone=0.19
And the number of mauve fixes is even greater.

I will run a mauve test before and after import and post that here.

> Did you need any patches other than the one to makemake.tcl?  If not,
> that is a good sign.

Nothing else. Except regenerating the various files after running
makemake of course.

> I want us to do this import, since it will fix some important bugs
> (like the http protocol handler thing -- among other things this
> affects Eclipse).  But, it has a reasonable chance of being
> destabilizing and I don't want to unnecessarily anger other GCC
> developers.

If someone on a non-GNU/Linux x86 platform could try out the merge
procedure from the HACKING file that would be great.

Cheers,

Mark

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part