ANNOUNCE: Updated GCJ and SWT Article

Mohan Embar gnustuff@thisiscool.com
Thu May 15 19:32:00 GMT 2003


>However, during most of the writing of the article, I was on 3.2. I did 
>think about recommending 3.3 in the article, but I wouldn't have had 
>enough time to test on it. It would be a real bummer if I recommended 3.3 
>and then readers ended up with problems.

Readers will probably end up with way more problems with 3.2.

In my opinion,

3.2 : 3.3 === Eclipse 1.0 : Eclipse 2.0

if that gives you a good perspective.

Ranjit? Anyone else?

>Even so, if you think it is very important, I can check whether I can make 
>a last-minute edit to the article.

That's your call, based on the information Ranjit and I have provided. Maybe
Erik and Øyvind can also chime in.

This being said, let me know if you plan to do this. I can do a fresh build
with the now-frozen 3.3 sources.

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/





More information about the Java mailing list