You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> on 2008/02/12 20:45:15 UTC
Re: [drlvm] Build is broken
Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Nope, will try, thanks!
>
> BTW, had I missed the transition period?
> I thought even if new build system became default, support for old
> build system should remain for some time.
Well, sometimes it is easier to make a clean switch over and deal with
the consequences.
I have to say that the new build is working well for me, so hopefully
you will learn to like it better too.
Regards,
Tim
Re: [drlvm] Build is broken
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2008/2/13, Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>:
> Mark Hindess said the following on 13.02.2008 11:49:
> > On 13 February 2008 at 10:59, "Alexey Varlamov" <al...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> 2008/2/13, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> >>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> >>>> Nope, will try, thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, had I missed the transition period?
> >>>> I thought even if new build system became default, support for old
> >>>> build system should remain for some time.
> >>> Well, sometimes it is easier to make a clean switch over and deal with
> >>> the consequences.
> >> Indeed so. Anyway, the new build is stable and I think we better be
> >> done with old build before code freeze for M5. Does someone object?
> >
> > I think we must do it, otherwise our source release is going to be
> > rather confusing.
>
> We could change the old build to give an instruction to use a new one
> instead :)
OK, I will just drop the old build tomorrow.
--
Alexey
>
> --
> Gregory
>
>
Re: [drlvm] Build is broken
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
Mark Hindess said the following on 13.02.2008 11:49:
> On 13 February 2008 at 10:59, "Alexey Varlamov" <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2008/2/13, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>> Nope, will try, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> BTW, had I missed the transition period?
>>>> I thought even if new build system became default, support for old
>>>> build system should remain for some time.
>>> Well, sometimes it is easier to make a clean switch over and deal with
>>> the consequences.
>> Indeed so. Anyway, the new build is stable and I think we better be
>> done with old build before code freeze for M5. Does someone object?
>
> I think we must do it, otherwise our source release is going to be
> rather confusing.
We could change the old build to give an instruction to use a new one
instead :)
--
Gregory
Re: [drlvm] Build is broken
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 13 February 2008 at 10:59, "Alexey Varlamov" <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2008/2/13, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> > Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > Nope, will try, thanks!
> > >
> > > BTW, had I missed the transition period?
> > > I thought even if new build system became default, support for old
> > > build system should remain for some time.
> >
> > Well, sometimes it is easier to make a clean switch over and deal with
> > the consequences.
> Indeed so. Anyway, the new build is stable and I think we better be
> done with old build before code freeze for M5. Does someone object?
I think we must do it, otherwise our source release is going to be
rather confusing.
-Mark.
Re: [drlvm] Build is broken
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2008/2/13, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > Nope, will try, thanks!
> >
> > BTW, had I missed the transition period?
> > I thought even if new build system became default, support for old
> > build system should remain for some time.
>
> Well, sometimes it is easier to make a clean switch over and deal with
> the consequences.
Indeed so. Anyway, the new build is stable and I think we better be
done with old build before code freeze for M5. Does someone object?
--
Alexey