Re:

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

>I'm checking this in on the trunk.  If I remember I'll put it on the
>4.0 branch once it reopens (there are a fair number of patches pending
>for it ... I hope it reopens soon).
>  
>

Mark,

The extended freeze of the 4.0 branch is making things difficult for 
libgcj because we have a large backlog of runtime patches which we are 
unable to apply at this time. The longer the freeze continues, the more 
difficult it becomes for us to keep track of what needs applying and 
increases the chances that something will be forgotten, resulting in 
problems and wasted time further down the line.

Could we get an exemption from the freeze rules for low-risk, runtime 
only libgcj fixes as determined by the libgcj maintainers? 
Alternatively, could we rethink our release policy to ensure that the 
duration of freezes is minimized in the future? I do think that a hard 
freeze in the days leading up to a release is useful and important, but 
keeping it in place for weeks just because a couple of bugs remain 
unfixed doesn't seem helpful.

Thanks

Bryce