Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Tue Jun 30 19:10:58 UTC 2009

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:32, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

> Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > Right.  There is a problem when different sets of contributors have
> > different objectives for things like compatibility, portability,
> > stability, benchmark performance....
> > It might be that a significant contributor (like Sun or IcedTea)
> > would maintain a separate set of patches essentially forever, since
> > they would not be acceptable to the greater community.  Oh, I guess
> > that's already happened, eh?
> Ouch, that touched a nerve.
> I certainly hope not.  Goodness knows, we're really trying to make that
> separate set of patches go away.

I wasn't trying to criticize IcedTea specifically.  Both IcedTea and Google
are working hard to send changes upstream, but I know that Google
has some that will remain private, and I suspect that may be true
for all 3 of our organizations going forward, despite our best efforts
to achieve a common code base.


> Andrew.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20090630/ead74974/attachment.html>

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list