> "Jim" == James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> Appropriate info should be added here:
Jim> http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#upstream
Jim> This is where we keep track of such things.
Thanks, I'll fix this when I get back from my trip.
Tom
> "Joe" == Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe> Cool; does this mean that the amount of code built by a gcc bootstrap
Joe> will decrease? Or will the combined libgjc/Classpath code still be all
Joe> included in the gcc distribution.
It will all still be in there. It is just a differenc
David Daney wrote:
Recently we experienced the Big-Classpath-Merge. Now most of the source
code for libgcj is maintained in the Classpath project and periodically
copied into the GCC CVS repository.
Appropriate info should be added here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#upstream
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:17:26PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Recently we experienced the Big-Classpath-Merge. Now most of the source
> code for libgcj is maintained in the Classpath project and periodically
> copied into the GCC CVS repository.
Cool; does this mean that the amount of code bui
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 12:17 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> The consensus from the gcj IRC seems to be that a copyright assignment
> for Classpath is now necessary for contributions to the parts of libgcj
> that are maintained by Classpath. This also means that said patches
> should be checked
Recently we experienced the Big-Classpath-Merge. Now most of the source
code for libgcj is maintained in the Classpath project and periodically
copied into the GCC CVS repository.
In the old days if you had copyright assignments for GCC you could
contribute code to libgcj.
The consensus fro
