public inbox for java@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
To: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
Cc: java <java@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A031BA2.9050107@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A03193F.4020005@boreham.org>

David Boreham wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> That doesn't make it not a serious option.  It just means that
>> you don't want to do it, and you don't think that the gcj
>> community should do it.  It's still a serious option.
>>   
> Not really. The problem is that the test can only be run by special people
> under special circumstances.

Yes.

> So only the binaries produced by those special people can be said to have
> passed the test. People in general can't run the test, reproduce its
> results,
> test bug fixes, and so on. >

Agreed.

> Therefore it's not a useful option for an open
> source project.

That doesn't follow.

The question is whether getting the JCK and using it is a serious
option.  It certainly is a serious option for anyone who needs it:
they get the JCK, run it on their build, and by doing so check Java
compatibility.

It's a useful option for those who are prepared to get the JCK, and
when they put their changes back into the common sources, everyone
benefits.

No, it's not the paradigm of open development, and it's not an
ideal situation.

Andrew.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-07 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-07 14:31 Chris Gray
2009-05-07 15:29 ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-07 16:25   ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-07 16:32     ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 17:10       ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-07 17:20         ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 17:24           ` David Boreham
2009-05-07 17:34             ` Andrew Haley [this message]
2009-05-07 17:44           ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-08  0:22             ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-08 10:13               ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-08 11:00                 ` Mark Wielaard
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-06 20:43 Sal
2009-05-07  9:17 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 11:45   ` Bryce McKinlay
2009-05-07 13:25     ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-07 13:43       ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 13:50         ` Bryce McKinlay
2009-05-07 20:24   ` Sal
2009-05-08  8:04     ` Robert Schuster
2009-05-08 10:08     ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 16:28 ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-08 13:47   ` Robert Schuster

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4A031BA2.9050107@redhat.com \
    --to=aph@redhat.com \
    --cc=david_list@boreham.org \
    --cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).