Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of firepure@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.238 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=NHkLmMSfQ7pBcVa8FEbrmLwxsi/1cnALh+MoXo+JyWzEYUl8TIx0b/NEGh2MVjXEGIyuRfNrqWIX5N1tdfHKJDgYAGA+uuxHKFfGONx/L0OWQRTw0WBRXwLhVpvylR3tAt/lTz/RnGqcRD/xvO27KCHTKSerqQnQvr0DZZsz1b8=
Message-ID: <5c8e69f0704082225g64628adas54ec844174e36e8d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:25:29 +0800
From: "=?GB2312?B?THZKaW1teaOsSmluZw==?=" <firepure@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [OT] JFYI: Dave Gilbert (jfree.org) on Apache Harmony
In-Reply-To: <e66844de0704082201j24d1065du390a5539dceb7a0e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <0vq3b3cf1ir.fsf@gmail.com>
	 <bc79dd600704071607k5704707j42f44cd6319686c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970704080043p4ac8dc0o40e721f66d3eab00@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f982cec50704081912m4fddc9cy18b1e9b22fa5db3d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e66844de0704082201j24d1065du390a5539dceb7a0e@mail.gmail.com>

The article on the blog reads full of jealousy to me :P

2007/4/9, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com>:
> In my opinion, it is the time for us to catch up with Java 6 in order to
> attract our potential customers.
>
> As for branching, almost each apache project maintains branches and they all
> live well.:)
>
> And the patch convention, I agree with Paulex that :
> 1. If a patch can be applied on branch 5, apply it on branch 5.
> 2. If it cannot, there are two reasons, i think
>    (1) new features on Java 6: Just add it on branch 6.
>    (2) Conflicting specs or  RI' behaviors between Java 5 and Java 6 : We
> need to investigate them whether it is not an expected behavior in java 5 or
> just some implementation details. If it is,  modify branch 5. Or else just
> apply it on branch 6, which is regarded as an exception. And modify the
> testcases if necessary.
>

I guess so. The merge may not take too much affect, at least for new
classes/methods.
The most time-cost work to find the conflict(e.g, bug patches v.s. new
feature) and merge them into one.
However, we still have many people working together here who are
familiar with the Harmony codes, which make the work much easier,
right? :)

<SNIP>
> > > On 4/8/07, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bloggers blog while developers work :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I like we pushed RI to become open source. I like our scores in
> > > benchmarks
> > > > and I like our plans on stability improvements for the next quarter.
> > >
<SNIP>

Yes, I miss Geir as well, is he OK? :)

-- 

Best Regards!

Jimmy, Jing Lv
China Software Development Lab, IBM