gcc@gnu.org doesn't like me

Tue Dec 4 14:28:00 GMT 2001

Jeff Sturm wrote:
>Also keep in mind Mark's planned timeframe for 3.1:
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/msg00761.html
>>No new features after 12/15. Of course, libgcj should attempt to adhere
>to this schedule. Though it's not clear to me whether a new port is
>really a "feature".
>
Mark has said in the past that the release schedule/rules do not 
necessarily apply to gcj/libgcj - its up to us to use our discretion 
about what java changes go in during the stabilization period (asssuming 
they do not affect other parts of the compiler, of course). My feeling 
is that 2 months is longer than we need for stabilization work in gcj, 
and my vote is to continue to accept most changes/enhancements/ports 
during this period.
regards
Bryce.