Re: RFC: micro-libgcj merge proposal

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

S. Meslin-Weber wrote:
> In summary, the least effort solution would seem to be to give
> micro-libgcj a branch to develop on as a fork, merging in compatible
> fixes as necessary.

This is no problem.  I (or anyone else with svn write access) could 
create a fork right now if I wanted to.

To me the main issue is that there should be some consensus on the 
approach taken.  it seems that there are at least two approaches:

1) Use Per's preprocessor on marked up source (my favorite).

2) Start hacking out things we don't think are very 'micro'.  And have a 
seperate code base.

> Once micro-libgcj is a little more mature as a fork,
> and, in true Kaffe fashion, its merge into its parent can be revisited
> with a better understanding of the impact there.

This would be my preference as well.  Keeping it as close as possible to 
the libgcj mainline will probably lead to the highest quality code.  An 
eventual merge would be ideal.

David Daney.