incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: New committers?
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:38:00 GMT
My input below.

On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>
> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>    stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>    sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>    re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>    the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)

Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not believe he has ulterior
motives that would be detrimental to the rest of us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling
argument. Even with one, it stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache
to give up on STDCXX ownership.

> - I'm also reading through that methodology we use might not fit the
>    distributed model which could basically improve the pace of
>    development stream (and again github is nice at these things; but
>    there are other considerations)

The process put in place by Apache closely mirrors the rigors of the Rogue Wave environment
where the project originates. The development proceeds at the best speed possible while at
the same time proving the consistency and correctness of the code base through passing unit
tests. The process is tightly controlled by rules which are observed by everyone (such as
creating test cases before fixing bugs, thoroughly documenting changes, following coding and
code structuring conventions, etc.). The process has an ultimate authority in the person of
the tech lead, Martin.

The end result of the _pedantic_ application of these rules is the product you and I, all
of us, enjoy. As mentioned before it is of an excellent quality, not often seen in the software
world. It also is a very sophisticated product both with an intricate code structure, and
extreme use of the language which pushes the compilers to their limits. Any change, however
small, must be carefully considered and weighed, and careless changes will almost always break
it in subtle ways. As a rule of thumb, if there is something that looks wrong in the source
code, chances are you're not getting it right.

In case my point did not get across by now, I am strongly for the continuation of a tightly
controlled development process.

Thanks.

Liviu


Mime
View raw message