gback at cs.utah.edu
Wed Aug 26 12:38:23 PDT 1998
> Or should they simply be checked in using CVS?
> Who is in the current set of folks with CVS write access?
Currently, I think it's only Transvirtual and me and maybe some other
people, but if you look at the cvs logs, you'll see who's been checking
stuff in. I am not on transvirtual's bug mailing list, however,
which is why I can only include stuff sent to me personally or to
the mailing list. I think there's some value to sending it to the
list: this way, people can benefit from them before they show up in CVS.
I have tried to collect everything I see on the mailing list,
take a look at the ChangeLog and ChangeLog.1 for what has changed in the
last months. I am also giving credit to whoever submitted what.
(There's still things outstanding that I haven't looked at, such
as Alexandre's script improvements and some -Wall stuff, plus ThreadLocal.)
I have only limited time to work on it; and I also need to integrate it
in my Kaffe-based project.)
I did not do anything about awt-related fixes, because I don't feel
comfortable enough to judge them as to whether they're correct.
Peter from Transvirtual collects those, and he will check them in
the public tree. He can speak for himself as to when that will happen.
If you have submitted a patch in the past and feel that it should
be integrated, but wasn't, I'd like you to send it again. Sometimes
I don't integrate fixes because they're either wrong (rarely), or they
are not complete (that is, the fix contains changes to Makefiles as
opposed to Makefile.in), or they are machine-dependent, or I know that
related files should have been included but weren't included; in some
cases, because they're obscure. In the latter case, it is certainly
possible that I don't understand them: I would encourage authors to
comment and explain them. For examples, see the FAQs on make depend
and INSTROOT. However, I usually mail the author and ask them to explain
it. In the past, this has helped to clarify some of the fixes that were
not 100% correct.
More information about the kaffe