From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 37737 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2016 15:34:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 37727 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2016 15:34:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Fortune, H*r:sk:java-pa, outstanding X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 15:34:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 096583B707 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-116-75.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.75]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u85FYZaQ001356; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:34:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ To: java-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <78f841e7-808b-58d0-7913-3ec0d19630a0@redhat.com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E4EB0CB@HHMAIL01.hh.imgtec.org> From: Andrew Haley Message-ID: <2e9c24e9-9952-e355-e1ff-e4b6ba8edf6e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 15:34:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E4EB0CB@HHMAIL01.hh.imgtec.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-q3/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 On 05/09/16 16:32, Matthew Fortune wrote: > Andrew Haley writes: >> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this >> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted >> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion, is >> at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcj/gcj-deletion-branch >> if anyone would like to try it. > > I hadn't realised libjava was earmarked for removal (and I have no > objection) but given I have an outstanding bug in libjava I wonder how > we will deal with bug fix backports when we can't commit to trunk first? What an interesting question. I think you'll have to commit to the live branches. Andrew.