Re: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2

[Jon VanAlten <jon dot vanalten at redhat dot com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Hughes" <gnu.andrew@redhat.com>
> To: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Matthias Klose" <doko@ubuntu.com>, "GCJ-patches" <java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, classpath@gnu.org, "Tom Tromey"
> <tromey@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:34:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Matthias Klose" <doko@ubuntu.com>
> > > To: "GCJ-patches" <java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > Cc: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten@redhat.com>, classpath@gnu.org, "Tom
> > > Tromey" <tromey@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:21:45 AM
> > > Subject: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2
> > > 
> > > It looks like this ecj is already used
> > > within the Fedora disto, however only locally patched (at least I
> > > couldn't
> > > find
> > > any mail sent to java-patches).
> > > 
> > 
> > My bad.  I honestly didn't have any idea what the upstream process would
> > be.
> > My
> > history in the free java world starts after openjdk/icedtea, so all the gcj
> > fluff isn't really known well to me, and I don't really know where to look
> > for
> > information (pointers appreciated!  :D  ).  So I sort of let it slip
> > through
> > the cracks.
> > 
> > I did bring it up on an earlier thread[1], and it seems like by accident it
> > also went to java-patches.  Now I know for next time, if and when there is
> > a
> > next time.
> > 
> 
> Don't feel bad, Jon.  It's not your fault.  I was around for "the gcj fluff"
> (perhaps wording it better would be a good idea though) and I still have no
> idea how this is updated, despite asking on this list at least once.
> 
> And to be honest, I still don't.
> 

Hah, ok then hopefully those that *do* know their way around can offer up a
pointer to some documentation (possibly preceded by creating and publishing
said documentation) :)

Just to make sure, I don't mean "fluff" in a derogatory sense at all!
Rather, I thank the forebearers of the free java community for doing all
that great work.  It's just that now, since there is very little active work
on those bits (as I understand it because there is very little need for
active work), I haven't had the opportunity to learn the ins and outs, and
so it all seems like a big black box to me, such that I fall back on
speaking of it in generic terms like "fluff" by which I mean just "stuff",
not at all "inconsequential".

cheers,
jon