Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 22:10 +0000, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > Right, this is probably going to cause a bit more controversy than > most patches...
:) > * Change the discussion of releases to refer to 1.0 as a major > release rather than a public release. Most of our 0.x releases > have been pretty public! Yes, good change. I would actually just call them that in the actual text: <P>GNU Classpath is always in progress. The have been various public 0.x releases, slowly working towards the major 1.0 release. The current development source code is available via GNU's anonymous <A href="https://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=classpath";> CVS server</A> , and periodic public releases of the GNU Classpath tree are made available on <A href="ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/classpath/";>ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/classpath/</A> </P> > * Switch from using the kaffe.org JAPI results to builder's as > these currently seem to be dead. Indeed, anyone clicking on them > gets a really bad impression that we don't even implement 1.0... > Unfortunately this means we only have 1.4 and 1.5 results. If someone > could run JAPI against OpenJDK6 (e.g. those working on IcedTea), this > would be much appreciated. I'd prefer not to link against the OpenJDK > results as they represent an unstable API in the JDK itself (i.e. there > are things we shouldn't fix as they are not yet finalised!) Yes, this is a good idea, and a good suggestion. > * I changed the Mauve results to point at builder as well. The previous > page was nicer looking but antiquated. If someone wants to revive the older > page instead, this would be welcomed. This too. > * Updated the roadmap and in the process open the discussion of a 1.0 release. > I think we need to make a firm decision on this if GNU Classpath is to > continue. > A 1.0 release would actually be a good conclusion too, as people move towards > OpenJDK (which seems to be the case). As you can see from the patch, I suggest > we make 1.0 a release where the core (java.*) is at the 1.6 level. If you > view > the current comparisons with 1.5, you will see we are already further along > the > 1.6 path than might be thought, and I think we can achieve this subsection > prior > to a 1.7 JDK being made available. Other elements, like Swing, would be a > bonus. > More importantly, I suggest we aim to get several applications working well -- > which these are I'll leave to discussion on here, but Eclipse, Tomcat and > JBoss seem > like good choices to me (given we've had efforts on all these already). > Without > making any guarantees this early, the end of the year would be a nice time to > see this happen. This might be slightly controversial. Personally I would aim for 1.5 completeness, plus anything 1.6 we have and a stable VM interface. Hopefully one that will be easy to use for openjdk too. I really like the addition of the use feedback paragraph. Thanks, Mark
