Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > Tim Ellison wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>> Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch >>>> if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it >>>> in-place, but whatever). >>> Why a branch? can it just be out of the mainline build? IOW, excluded >>> for everyone else in the build? >> ARCHIVE is already in the mainline build and contains jar/zip support, >> we don't want to exclude that. > > That wasn't what I meant. I meant excluding the single file(s) that > cause the problem.
Well you /could/ but I would claim that is not very desirable, since we would have to back out some changes in the existing built code for pack200, convince each IDE that not all files in the src/main were to be compiled, remember that there is an out-of-line set of files for archive etc. Sounds like a form of branching without really doing it. ...but I expect that we won't need any of this, I'm sure Alex can cope ;-) Alex: can you send what you have done so far? >>> (Or just make Alex keep it working :) >> That would be my preference -- the committer that applies the patch and >> the continuous build can check win/linux compilation. If 'keeping it >> working' is too onerous, then branch. > > Or get help :) Of course! Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
