Alex Blewitt wrote:
However, if not, and some IPMC memebers still really want to see a
demonstration of a release process, we can certainly do that. I've
thought about what we might release. One thing that came to mind is a
Pack200 jar :)
:-) So, you're saying I've got less than a month to finish it ...
Nope! This was my worry - that this "testing" would disrupt normal
life. Keep going at whatever course and speed you want. The point of a
release would be to do the release, not show working perfect code.
I'll probably be able to get *something* ready for a release, but I
doubt it will be fully compliant by then. The problem is that
decompressed Jars are supposed to be exactly the same for any
decompressor, so that MD5 signatures remain valid afterwards. What I
can probably get is an unpacked Jar that will execute, but might be in
a different ordering or have different MD5 signatures for components.
The problem is that there's a lot of possible combinations of input
files ...
Don't worry :)
I've also tended to do fairly large code drops in patches, because it
normally means a few days between submission and when it can be
applied (thanks for the last one Paulex :-) I'd prefer to submit
smaller patches as and when new functionality is added, but it would
take longer that way.
Small patches would be better ;)
PS When's the code going to be moved to a jdktools subproject?
That's actually a subject for a separate thread - given that the core
code is in the classlib, we can't...
geir
Alex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
