From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12301 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2006 15:44:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 12293 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2006 15:44:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:44:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5GFi5oL013205; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:44:05 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5GFi5wm021023; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:44:05 -0400 Received: from [172.16.14.37] (toadstool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.37]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5GFi4ve025481; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:44:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4492D1C4.2070600@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:44:00 -0000 From: Kyle Galloway User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Koch CC: mauve-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA JDWP TestOfCountFilter References: <44917466.5090406@redhat.com> <20060615153429.GO30916@mail.konqueror.de> <4491952A.1040508@redhat.com> <20060615173634.GQ30916@mail.konqueror.de> In-Reply-To: <20060615173634.GQ30916@mail.konqueror.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact mauve-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 Looking at the GNU-Crypto tests, I think that the JDWP test should be tagged GNU-JDWP JDK 1.4. Any comments about this idea? -Kyle Michael Koch wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:13:14PM -0400, Kyle Galloway wrote: > >> Ok, any suggestions about which tag to use. I know there is a list that >> is included with classpath, and there is nothing there to cover this >> case. Should I use something like GNU JDK 1.4 or just GNU or GNU 0.91..... >> >> I'll be happy to fix and re-submit, but I would like some guidance about >> the best way to proceed. >> > > Good question. I would propose "Classepath". > > What does others think? > > > Cheers, > Michael >