Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of rdasgupt@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=Un22nwTHBVOYLvCdG9x87TGMRB2Px7rur/PkYIFJj0bnzlrUEGVGlsx/1E7HZGic2YemX6ODUOth8rvAgq4Ef2v9ivOkK/Mhwbxy4XZ4c6ynGtvm95esHi0NCApRCOpZWTq2uDsRy7lnjose1C9mdHqT8BcGASY3EKgxh4jDhLg=
Message-ID: <51d555c70611051129g33a1a5f4o9bf2ac01ccc09251@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:29:28 -0700
From: "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasgupt@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org, geir@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [drlvm] Is it time to say goodbye to dear friend GC v4?
In-Reply-To: <454D2EB6.6040309@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_25178_8920249.1162754968644"
References: <454961C4.8030508@pobox.com>
	 <12385bbd0611021154p5b5d5b35t51bed151e06606aa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8ce6aa550611030136n640d7cfen67109362308b3c63@mail.gmail.com>
	 <454B314A.4090701@pobox.com>
	 <bc79dd600611030742t26a947ffse970f1fe65c7cde2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <12385bbd0611031304j6e2b9ba9y9ca64678664b39f5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <454D2EB6.6040309@pobox.com>

------=_Part_25178_8920249.1162754968644
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Since we have accepted GCV4.1 as the default and GCV5 as the development GC
based on several list discussions, I think that we may be OK with announcing
that GCv4 is deprecated, and maybe taken out of the active tree by end of
2006?

Patches that are still coming in that only work with GCV4, probably began
development quite a while ago ... since the default code does not pick up
GCV4, I am not sure how they are passing acceptance tests, unless their
functionality is not covered by the existing tests. Anyway, this is risky
IMHO, since as soon as we add the right test to the acceptance suite, the
functionality will fail( since we will only run tests with default paths ).
Anyway, announcing deprecation will only help, IMHO. Thanks for bringing
this up.

Rana


On 11/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, put some logging statements in.  Ask Tim if you need some help ;)
>
> I think we can do as you suggest, or simply document it somewhere.
> Cleaerly if someone knows enough to switch GC, they have hit a manual or
> code somewhere.
>
> I guess when I asked the original question, I was thinking that we
> should just be clear that it's now deprecated, and therefore except for
> required changes to keep compatible w/ the interface to GC, nothing
> should change it.  This was driven by my noticing that there was some
> recent patches that worked on GCv4, not 4.1...
>
> geir
>
>
>

------=_Part_25178_8920249.1162754968644--