Mark Mitchell wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >>>> But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided >>>> that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely >>>> way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj >>>> maintainers start the patch-reversion clock. >>>> >>>> If we make this change I'll set up an auto-tester on the compile farm >>>> that builds gcj along with everything else. I think this would >>>> provide a pretty reasonable compromise. > > I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be > required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the > Java maintainers get to revert a patch summarily based merely on the > fact that there exists a Java post-patch failure that does not occur > pre-patch.
OK. I'm hoping that the java mainatiners won't have _all_ the burden, though. We should have a trial phase where java build breakage on the autobuilders is mailed to the maintainers who checked in patches and to the java maintainers, and we'll see how it goes. I'm open-minded about this, but if it doesn't work we should be prepared to revert the policy. Andrew.
