No entry in Bugzilla for binary compatibility?
Wed Oct 22 10:03:00 GMT 2003
Bryce McKinlay writes:
> On Oct 22, 2003, at 8:52 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Tom Tromey writes:
> >> One nice thing about bugzilla is that we can create a master bug for
> >> a multi-part feature like this, and then make individual bugs for the
> >> parts, which are dependencies of the main bug. This makes tracking
> >> things a little clearer.
> > Well, gcc is now in the "bug fixes only" stage, so I guess I need a
> > bug. And failure to comply with Chapter 13 is certainly a bug.
> For Java we have traditionally interpreted the GCC development stages
> somewhat loosely (so long as we don't touch the rest of the compiler,
> of course).
I know, but as gcj matures we become more of a fully-fledged part of
gcc. With that comes naturally a tightening of our processes -- it
used to be that the looseness of the Java requirements was because
Java wasn't important. It is now.
I'm not saying we should formalize any of this, but a big change to
gcj at this stage needs sound justification. And I believe Chapter 13
More information about the Java