From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27458 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2017 12:52:07 -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 27423 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2017 12:52:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=interest X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: aibo.runbox.com Received: from aibo.runbox.com (HELO aibo.runbox.com) (91.220.196.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:51:56 +0000 Received: from [10.9.9.212] (helo=mailfront12.runbox.com) by bars.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVe6C-0007cF-Rx; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:51:52 +0100 Received: from 70-36-239-8.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com ([70.36.239.8] helo=localhost.localdomain) by mailfront12.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:757155 ) (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) id 1cVe68-0003ZY-Lq; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:51:48 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ To: Jakub Jelinek , Andrew Haley References: <78f841e7-808b-58d0-7913-3ec0d19630a0@redhat.com> <610ea470-7197-2f55-1fee-23f89a443460@redhat.com> <0b80d6e7-b1f5-e120-7223-76f93f2c6d6d@redhat.com> <20170123090503.GH1867@tucnak> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , GCC Patches , GCJ-patches From: Per Bothner Message-ID: <82cb9ea4-96d3-2e71-212c-c6e59b263c30@bothner.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170123090503.GH1867@tucnak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-q1/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 On 01/23/2017 01:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:01:24AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 22/01/17 18:41, Per Bothner wrote: >>> In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored. >> >> Because of the historical interest? That's a good point, and perhaps >> I was too hasty. Sorry. > > But then it should be probably moved somewhere where Gerald won't have to > spent time maintaining those pages (verification of URLs in there, updating > them when they are moved etc.). The last part is moot, as we should strive to not move pages and thus break links. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/