On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Tom Tromey wrote: > Andrew> My suggestion is that we build jc1 but not libgcj by default. > Andrew> HOWEVER, we build libgcj on the autobuilders and make very sure that > Andrew> if anyone breaks the libgcj build they have to fix their breakage, > Andrew> even tho it's not part of the default build. That will prevent most > Andrew> of the bitrot while we figure out how to go forward. > > Good idea. > > Maybe instead of removing libgcj from the default builds, we can just > say that maintainers can --disable-libjava for regression testing > purposes. This would make testers continue to test libgcj by default. > Tom
Ugh, I think this is a terrible idea. It took me all of zero days to find an example of libjava breaking when someone didn't test it: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01351.html If we make not testing java an actual policy, you can expect much more breakage. Things that aren't tested suffer bitrot, plain and simple. That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java if your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect it. E.g. changing the fortran or ada frontends doesn't affect java. But IMHO we shouldn't relax the testing rules for the overlapping parts if we want to keep our bits all working nicely. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
