This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Documenting what changed since 4.0 (gcj core libraries)

From: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:50:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Documenting what changed since 4.0 (gcj core libraries)
References: <1138617600.5717.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m3acddlo09.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <1138714399.5680.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138718247.5680.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601311533440.10282@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <1138725762.5680.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 15:37 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: 
> Here is a patch against the changes.html file:
> 
> 2006-01-31  Mark Wielaard  <mark@klomp.org>
> 
> 	* htdocs/gcc-4.1/changes.html (Java): New section describing
> 	core library updates for 4.1.
> 
> OK to commit?
> (Is it correct that these are only available through CVS?)

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 17:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Is this OK? It is modeled after the Ada section.
> 
> 2006-01-31  Mark Wielaard  <mark@klomp.org>
> 
>     * doc/contrib.texi (Contributors): Add classpath/libgcj hackers
>     who added new 4.1 features, bug fixes and integration support.

Can/Should someone formally approve these two patches? Or are
documentation patches like these OK to commit without approval?

Thanks,

mark

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

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]