IcedTea

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 30/04/2008, Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Dear IcedTea hackers,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that all new packaging work is now being done solely on
>>> the IcedTea6 repository which makes sense -- this is obviously what
>>> needs to be packaged up and shipped in distros right now.
>>>
>>> However, looking towards working on my challenge project, I ideally
>>> want to be doing this on the OpenJDK tree rather than on OpenJDK6.  I
>>> can port the changes across locally, but would anyone be interested in
>>> me pushing these back to the main IcedTea tree as well?  Or, taking
>>> the alternative view, does anyone have any objections to this?
>>>
>>  Your challenge project is the virtual machine interface, right?  By "main
>> IcedTea" tree, do you mean icedtea, or icedtea6?  I'd rather keep the
>> icedtea6 branch focused on distribution integration of OpenJDK 6, but I have
>> no objection experimental work such as the VM interface being integrated on
>> the icedtea branch.
>>
>>  Tom
>>
> 
> Yes, you're correct about the project.  I just realised I didn't make
> myself that clear in the original mail.  What I'm referring to is not
> the VM interface work itself (though it would be nice to have that
> available via IcedTea too) but merely that the icedtea branch now lags
> behind the icedtea6 branch in terms of patches, etc.
> 
> In working with OpenJDK, using IcedTea would make it much easier for
> me to build and work with, so having an up-to-date icedtea branch
> would be very useful.  As I say, I can easily merge across the patches
> locally from icedtea6, but are people happy for me to push these to
> the icedtea tree?

Yes, please do.

Thanks,
Tom