please update the gcj main page

please update the gcj main page

[John M. Gabriele]

Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.

When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
"does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't
support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't
support those newer features.

Thanks, :)
---John



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Ranjit Mathew]

John M. Gabriele wrote:
> Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
> how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
> 
> When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
> "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
> should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't
> support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't
> support those newer features.

GCJ doesn't yet support any of the new 1.5 features.

Tom Tromey is developing "gcjx", a complete rewrite
of the GCJ compiler front-end, that would support
the 1.5 features in addition to being easier to maintain,
etc. You can check it out for yourself using the "gcjx-branch"
branch of the GCC CVS repository:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html

As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
in the FAQ:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8

in addition to the front-page (if so desired).

Ranjit.

-- 
Ranjit Mathew       Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.     Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/

Re: please update the gcj main page

[John M. Gabriele]

--- Ranjit Mathew <rmathew@gmail.com> wrote:

> John M. Gabriele wrote:
> > Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
> > how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
> > 
> > When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
> > "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
> > should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't
> > support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't
> > support those newer features.
> 
> GCJ doesn't yet support any of the new 1.5 features.

Hi Ranjit. Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn't sound confrontational --
I just realized I forgot to put any smilies into my original message. :)

> Tom Tromey is developing "gcjx", a complete rewrite
> of the GCJ compiler front-end, that would support
> the 1.5 features in addition to being easier to maintain,
> etc. You can check it out for yourself using the "gcjx-branch"
> branch of the GCC CVS repository:
> 
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html

Nice. Thanks for the link. It would be great to have that
information right on the gcj front page. How can we go
about adding it?

> As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
> be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
> in the FAQ:
> 
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8

Ah. Some expansion of that faq item would be useful (re. 1.4 vs 1.5).
Following the link to the JLS page, I see that they are still pointing users
to what looks to me like the Java 1.4 spec (I browsed the online html version's
index, and there's no mention of generics or autoboxing), though a new
version of that JLS book seems to be coming out last month. :)

Also note that the "table of contents" at the top of the GCJ faq page has
a typo: s/arn't/aren't/.

> in addition to the front-page (if so desired).

Yes. How do we go about it? :)

Thanks,
---John

> Ranjit.
> 
> -- 
> Ranjit Mathew       Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com
> 
> Bangalore, INDIA.     Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Bryce McKinlay]

Ranjit Mathew wrote:

>As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
>be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
>in the FAQ:
>
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8
>
>in addition to the front-page (if so desired).
>  
>

The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved over 
to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier to 
update and maintain.

We need to avoid incorporating too many random factiods on the front 
page, but mentioning that GCJ is currently approximately-compatible with 
Java 1.4.2 would be worthwhile.

Bryce

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Bryce McKinlay]

John M. Gabriele wrote:

>Ah. Some expansion of that faq item would be useful (re. 1.4 vs 1.5).
>Following the link to the JLS page, I see that they are still pointing users
>to what looks to me like the Java 1.4 spec (I browsed the online html version's
>index, and there's no mention of generics or autoboxing), though a new
>version of that JLS book seems to be coming out last month. :)
>
>Also note that the "table of contents" at the top of the GCJ faq page has
>a typo: s/arn't/aren't/.
>
>  
>
>>in addition to the front-page (if so desired).
>>
>Yes. How do we go about it? :)
>  
>

The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here 
for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html

Fixes and updates should be submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org and 
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org. We appreciate your help with this!

Bryce

Re: please update the gcj main page

[John M. Gabriele]

--- Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> wrote:

> Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> 
> >As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
> >be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
> >in the FAQ:
> >
> >  http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8
> >
> >in addition to the front-page (if so desired).
> >  
> >
> 
> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved over 
> to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier to 
> update and maintain.

The faq looks great. I'm paranoid though -- with wiki's, I always worry
some random troll is going to pop in and make tiny incorrect changes
just to mess with everyone. IMO, if you needed some special access privileges
to make changes (besides just creating a username and password), that
would be ideal.

Also, the GCJ front page could use a link to the GCJ page of the wiki
(right under or in place of the GCJ FAQ link).

Further, in the column on the left (GCJ homepage), everything below the
"About GCC" should probably be under some sort of GCC heading or graphic
or color-scheme (to show that that stuff is not *specifically* GCJ-related, but
rather, general GCC-related). I tend to end up hitting the GCC-in-general
links on that page when I was looking to click GCJ-specific links.

Thanks,
---John



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: please update the gcj main page

[John M. Gabriele]

--- Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> wrote:

> John M. Gabriele wrote:
> 
> > >Yes. How do we go about it? :)
> >  
> >
> 
> The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here 
> for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html
> 
> Fixes and updates should be submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org and 
> java-patches@gcc.gnu.org. We appreciate your help with this!
> 
> Bryce
> 

Thanks for the links Bryce. :) Will have a look at it this weekend.

---J



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Andrew Pinski]

On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:39 PM, John M. Gabriele wrote:
>
> The faq looks great. I'm paranoid though -- with wiki's, I always worry
> some random troll is going to pop in and make tiny incorrect changes
> just to mess with everyone. IMO, if you needed some special access 
> privileges
> to make changes (besides just creating a username and password), that
> would be ideal.

I check the recent edits page almost every day.  Oh that reminds me to
check it today.

-- Pinski
a GCC bug master

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> writes:

Bryce> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
Bryce> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
Bryce> to update and maintain.

Great idea, I agree.
We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the
years.  Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could
more easily fix their own problems.

Tom

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
>> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
>> to update and maintain.
> Great idea, I agree.
> We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the
> years.  Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could
> more easily fix their own problems.

We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
documentation around.

Gerald

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:30 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
> >> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
> >> to update and maintain.
> > Great idea, I agree.
> > We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the
> > years.  Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could
> > more easily fix their own problems.
> 
> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,

We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
move documentation from the wiki to the print.
They all simply take the wikipedia approach:  Make it very clear right
near the button necessary to submit changes that you ar enot to be
submitting things you didn't write, that all pages are licensed under
the GFDL, etc.

> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> documentation around.

Just like everyone else has had trouble?

> 
> Gerald

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
>> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
> move documentation from the wiki to the print.

We are not just any project...

>> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
>> documentation around.
> Just like everyone else has had trouble?

...being an FSF project mandates stricter standards on copyright issues 
than "everyone else" needs to follow.

Gerald

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> documentation around.

The same sort of thing could apply regarding changes to Wiki software - we 
may need to make sure the authorship information for all past significant 
changes in the current Wiki remains available even if the past history 
isn't directly imported into new Wiki software.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:02 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> >> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
> > move documentation from the wiki to the print.
> 
> We are not just any project...
> 
> >> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> >> documentation around.
> > Just like everyone else has had trouble?
> 
> ...being an FSF project mandates stricter standards on copyright issues 

For code.
I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.

> than "everyone else" needs to follow.

Other FSF projects use their Wiki for docs.
See GNUStep, GNOME, etc

Or are they not "FSF enough" for you?


> 
> Gerald

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:12 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> > documentation around.
> 
> The same sort of thing could apply regarding changes to Wiki software - we 
> may need to make sure the authorship information for all past significant 
> changes in the current Wiki remains available even if the past history 
> isn't directly imported into new Wiki software.

It is already.

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> For code.
> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.

I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.

Gerald

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Robert Dewar]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
>>For code.
>>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
>>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> 
> 
> I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.

removing stuff is a remedy for copyright violation, for which
a liability still exists. it is preferable to avoid any
possible infringement in the first place.

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 22:50 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > 
> >>For code.
> >>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> > 
> > 
> > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
> 
> removing stuff is a remedy for copyright violation, for which
> a liability still exists. it is preferable to avoid any
> possible infringement in the first place.
> 
I leave legal stuff to the FSF, and have submitted proposed text (like
what Wikipedia does) to people on the SC to forward along in the hopes
that will pacify these concerns.

You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.

As for the rest, I view the processes here as a means to an end, not an
end unto themselves, and think we should go with the flow contributors
want to take when it makes sense and is possible.

If it would encourage people to write docs to do docs using a different
process (doxygen, wikis, whatever) that has worked well for others, then
let's try it in addition to our existing process and see how it turns
out.
I certainly don't think our current docs process (IE texinfo + patch
review + cvs based docs + whatever) has encouraged the kind of
contribution we really need to have great docs, for *whatever* reason.
I don't blame the people currently maintaining and reviewing docs,
though they seem to believe i do.

I am simply trying to help find a process that enables better docs.  I
don't honestly care if that process ends up being people chiseling stone
tablets and sending them to me for typing up and editing, along with
appropriate legal waiver forms.  If that's what developers find gets
them to write documentation, ...

Forcing people to write more documentation will only work if it's not
really extra work for them.  If you established a rule that for every
300 lines of code submitted, 150 lines must be added to the .texi files,
i believe people would simply stop contributing at all.

--Dan

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Florian Weimer]

* Gerald Pfeifer:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> For code.
>> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
>> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
>
> I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.

The official position might have changed (e.g. copyright assignments
and documentation).

Re: please update the gcj main page

[John M. Gabriele]

--- Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> * Gerald Pfeifer:
> 
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> For code.
> >> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> >
> > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
> 
> The official position might have changed (e.g. copyright assignments
> and documentation).
> 

I had one thing I'd like to add to this thread:

I spend some amount of time updating various GNU/Linux-related
docs on the web. Before wiki's became popular (or, at least, before
I knew about them), updating a project's docs meant figuring out
how to get the site's source via cvs, learning LinuxDoc/DocBook,
and sending patches or getting commit access. I never got involved
with that.

Now that many projects are using wiki's, I can log in, make
corrections/additions, and log out. Not to mention how simple
most wiki formatting rules are. It's a piece of cake. The only
thing that bugs me is that sometimes the wiki police trample
over some nicely crafted bit of work I've done, but that's not
too often.

Devs on these mailing lists have reapeatedly mentioned how receptive
they are to having more newb-friendly docs contributed, but it's
just *so* *darn* *easy* to work with a wiki that I'm spoiled rotten,
and I'm quickly getting too lazy to start doing it the old way.

(It occurs to me to wonder if tldp is beginning to see fewer
updates to their docs because folks are preferring to use wiki's.)

IMO, it's best to keep wiki's editable only by folks/accounts
that've been approved somehow. It shouldn't be too much trouble
for a wiki maintainer to enable/disable users as-needed. (Though
some folks have mentioned that they monitor the wiki continuously
and are emailed notifications every time a change is made, so
maybe it's not necessary to only allow approved contributors.)

Anyhow, that's my opinion FWIW, coming from someone who writes
pretty good newb-friendly docs, on various wiki's, every now and
again. IMO, if there's some issue with licensing/copyright and
wiki's for GNU projects, it should be straightened out so everyone
can easily start contributing to the docs, wiki-style. That seems
to be the future of web docs AFAICT.

---John



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:20 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
>     just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
>     which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.
> 
> I don't follow.  The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation
> infringes on their copyright and claims that the disclaimers on the Wiki do
> not constitute a contract or license. 

This is barely worth explaining, but;

Such a claim would be ridiculous to press in spite of a clear and
conspicuous notice to the contrary, plus affirmative action on the user
to agree to such a disclaimer, such as clicking a button.  The case law
on this is nowadays enormous.  If you want to go ask another lawyer
whether they'd feel the same way, ask them.  I'm sure they'd give you
the same answer *for these circumstances*.  In general, you don't get to
claim they can't do something when they told you they were going to do
it, you said "okay", and then they did it.
We have verifiable logs that they clicked the submit button, submitting
these changes, on such and such a day, at such and such a time.

As for the rest of your views on documentation, you could have said the
same thing of managing bug reports under GNATS that were fixed or
affected by their code. It was extra work, and a critical part of
development,  yet people often didn't do it.  Did that make people's
code contributions "not very valuable"?  And are you going to disagree
that the problem with that process was not, in fact, the tool being
used?  Make a process use tools that people don't like, and they won't
do it.  You can say they aren't very valuable then, but that doesn't
actually help you get your project where it wants to go.

Your views seem very out of touch with what other projects have found to
be useful in producing good documentation in terms of tools and
processes.

Re: please update the gcj main page

[Richard Kenner]

    You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
    just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
    which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.

I don't follow.  The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation
infringes on their copyright and claims that the disclaimers on the Wiki do
not constitute a contract or license.  It would be very embarassing to the
FSF to be found guilty of copyright infringement and it doesn't matter
whether it's in code or documentation.

    Forcing people to write more documentation will only work if it's not
    really extra work for them.

Again, I don't follow.  Writing documentation certainly is "extra work".
Indeed it's often much more work than writing the code.  But it's a very
critical part of software development and if people aren't willing to do it,
their contribution isn't very valuable.