Java web pages

[Bryce McKinlay]

"Joseph S. Myers" wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
> > java-announce is like gcc-announce: it is supposed to be low traffic. I'd
> > like to see it stay.
>
> However, the traffic levels on gcc-announce are hardly likely to overwhelm
> java-announce readers.

Okay, but my concern is do gcc-announce readers care about Java announcements?
Hypothetical examples: "gtk based AWT implementation now available!" or "RMI
now supported in current snapshot". Then again, such announcements are
probably infrequent enough that gcc readers won't mind seeing them, so I don't
care strongly about this.

> Should all Java patches be going to gcc-patches as well as java-patches
> (similar to the policy with libstdc++)?
>

The existing policy for this is that java compiler patches go to gcc-patches
(only) while runtime patches go to java-patches (only). Rationale: Runtime
patches are unlikely to be of interest to most gcc developers, while front-end
patches might be. Maybe it would be useful to have the compiler patches sent
to both lists however.

regards

  [ bryce ]