chromatic wrote:
If it's *close* (and mostly passing tests) we can always throw it back
into trunk immediately after a monthly release and give ourselves 4
weeks to clean it up.
The important thing to remember is that the GSOC project wasn't "revamp
the GC system to meet the new spec" it was
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The overall concepts of the incremental GC are solid, but a couple of
> > details
> > of the implementation need polishing. It's difficult to debug these type
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:00:24PM +0300, Nikolay Ananiev wrote:
>
>> Today I saw Andrew's last post in his blog about the end of gsoc.
>> Since I could not find much information about the NCI and GC projects I'm
>> asking here
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:00:24PM +0300, Nikolay Ananiev wrote:
> Today I saw Andrew's last post in his blog about the end of gsoc.
> Since I could not find much information about the NCI and GC projects I'm
> asking here: What's the status of these projects?
> Andrew's last post seems discouragi
gsoc_nci code is available in branches/gsoc_nci_001
jitted nci stubs works on i386 WIN32 and i386 LINUX
Its probably going to be merged this week.
Kevin
Nikolay Ananiev wrote:
Hey guys,
Today I saw Andrew's last post in his blog about the end of gsoc.
Since I could not find much information ab
