Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Andrew Haley wrote:

> > > But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided
> > > that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely
> > > way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj
> > > maintainers start the patch-reversion clock.
> > >
> > > If we make this change I'll set up an auto-tester on the compile farm
> > > that builds gcj along with everything else.  I think this would
> > > provide a pretty reasonable compromise. 

I agree.  I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be 
required to fix the problem.  In fact, we could have the rule that the 
Java maintainers get to revert a patch summarily based merely on the 
fact that there exists a Java post-patch failure that does not occur 
pre-patch.  That does shift the testing burden to the Java maintainers, 
but it also means that there is no risk that Java is completely hosed.

I am a huge fan of testing, but I do think that right now we're running 
too much testing for not enough return.  It's not that the testing is 
bad, or that more testing doesn't prevent bugs; it's that the marginal 
cost of bug-prevention from the Java testing seems too high to me, given 
that after-the-fact auto-testing can delivery much of the same value.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713