Hi Jim, hi Oskar, --- Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm all for doing that. There's a lot of stuff I've > found that I'd like > to plunk into the tree, but I'd like to do some > re-organizing first. So > it's a post-1.0.7 item. I'd rather have a clean way > of incorporating > stuff that's actively being maintained elsewhere, > since I'd rather not > have the responsibility of maintaining code that's > been "forked" off of > somebody else's tree - instead I want a way of being > able to easily > update the code from the "upstream" sources.
I agree. If we incorporate stuff that's actively beeing maintained elsewhere into kaffe then it might be best to incorporate it as jars, like we do it for kjc. The problem with jars is that CVS doesn't handle binary files well, but the (in my opinion overwhelming) positive aspect is that we avoid "forks". dalibor topic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
