On 04/28/2016 12:45 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> yes, that looks good. Can't approve it myself.
OK.
Andrew.
On 28.04.2016 12:52, Rainer Orth wrote:
Rainer Orth writes:
Matthias Klose writes:
Bumping the version from from 6.0.0 to 6.1.0 broke gcj, because the minor
version is still encoded in the gcj abi, not seen during development of the
6 series until it was bumped for the final release.
This
Rainer Orth writes:
> Matthias Klose writes:
>
>> Bumping the version from from 6.0.0 to 6.1.0 broke gcj, because the minor
>> version is still encoded in the gcj abi, not seen during development of the
>> 6 series until it was bumped for the final release.
>
> This is PR java/70839.
I just not
Matthias Klose writes:
> Bumping the version from from 6.0.0 to 6.1.0 broke gcj, because the minor
> version is still encoded in the gcj abi, not seen during development of the
> 6 series until it was bumped for the final release.
This is PR java/70839.
Rainer
--
-
On 28/04/16 08:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ok for the 6 branch and the trunk?
OK,
Andrew.