Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 56772 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2007 20:46:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Oct 2007 20:46:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 64410 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2007 20:46:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 64400 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2007 20:46:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 64389 invoked by uid 99); 1 Oct 2007 20:46:49 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:46:49 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.quovadx.com) (208.30.140.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:46:51 +0000 Received: from qxvcexch01.ad.quovadx.com ([192.168.170.59]) by moroha.quovadx.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l91KhxhC022217 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:43:59 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: 4.2.0-rc-5 plans Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:44:41 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47015058.7070107@roguewave.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: 4.2.0-rc-5 plans Thread-Index: AcgEZNHbzrcUJ+dgSR+AbgYoQD2XogAAuVeQ References: <47015058.7070107@roguewave.com> From: "Travis Vitek" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org =20 Andrew Black wrote: > >The question I have is whether it makes sense to tag branches/4.2.0 as >of r580483 (Martin's integration) as tags/4.2.0-rc-5, or whether it >makes more sense to include the changes which were merged today as part >of the 4.2.0-rc-5 tag. I would argue for the former, in part because I >have some results from running the tests and examples under Rational >PurifyPlus 7.0 ( http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/purifyplus/ ) >which I plan to post shortly. This build was made using trunk at >r580086 plus part of the patch attached to STDCXX-573. I would archive the source used to generate the purify results with the results. By capturing the source and headers you eliminate the possible problems, and the decision of which revision to tag becomes irrelevant wrt the purify runs. That is what I have done as mentioned in our previous internal correspondence. > >SVN trunk at r580086 should be identical to branches/4.2.0 at r580483, >assuming the merge ran correctly. > I don't know if that is a safe assumption or not. I believe that 4.2.1 changes are happening on trunk but aren't being merged out to branches/4.2.0. > > Opinions, please? > I don't really understand exactly what the tags are used for, so I don't know how useful my feedback is. If these 'tags' are intended to indicate release candidates, as implied by the name, then it wouldn't make sense to skip changes that we know are going to make it into the release. Travis