Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 216.86.168.178 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <456C3DD9.2080607@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:47:05 -0500
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [drlvm][kernel_classes] ThreadLocal vulnerability
References: <455D9A52.2020407@tackline.plus.com> <456221C0.1020406@gmail.com>
 <4dd1f3f00611271728g48de5741h32b69647edc332fc@mail.gmail.com>
 <456C3BD5.80209@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <456C3BD5.80209@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Tim Ellison wrote:
> Weldon Washburn wrote:
>> On 11/20/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Regression test and fix for DRLVM kernel classes committed in r477355.
>>>
>>> Weldon: Are you maintaining the classlibadapter code?  Can you fix that
>>> too?
>> Its not on my list of stuff to do right now.  The last time I ran the
>> classlibadapter was back in May (I think).  It may take some effort to get
>> the classlibadapter working again.  This would have to happen before it
>> makes sense to apply bug fixes.
> 
> Should we move this into the archive then? or some other marker to show
> it is not active code?  The original concern was raised on this code by
> Tom diligently reading the code and understanding it -- I would rather
> he and others like him were reading the code we are actually developing!
> 
> If interest in the adapter is rekindled it is easy enough to svn move it
> back into mainstream.
> 

I see no reason to move it to archive, it's dormant, but maybe someone 
will be interested again if they see it.  If we store it in archive, 
then it's much harder to find.

I do like your suggestion of a marker - maybe a "DORMANT_SUBPROJECT.txt" 
file?


geir