On 24/06/2008, Christian Thalinger <twisti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 15:20 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > Since OpenJDK has been released, I've noticed that a tendency has
> > arisen to not treat
> > that codebase with the same 'don't look if working on the same code'
> > approach we had
> > when it was proprietary. When working on GNU Classpath, we still need
> > to be careful
> > about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
> > class libraries
> > are under (nearly) the same license.
> >
> > This also applies for other class libraries, namely Harmony's.
>
>
> I guess this email came from the Long.signum() discussion we had today
> on IRC. Today I noticed that we are failing this one, so I tried with
> CACAO/OpenJDK and it worked. Then I had a look at GNU Classpath's code
> and it was simply a one-liner. Wondering why it failed, I looked at the
> OpenJDK code and asked Mark if we could not simply use that correct
> implementation (from OpenJDK).
>
That's correct, but it's something that's troubled me for a while and
with previous patches.
> My point is, people are still working like in the "good old" proprietary
> way, at least I do. But also back then one-liners haven't been a
> problem.
>
It wasn't that specific case, but it reminded me of the issue in general.
And, of course, that particular one-liner is taken from a book anyway!
> - twisti
>
>
--
Andrew :-)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux Cryptography]
[Fedora]
[Fedora Directory]
[Red Hat Development]
