incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: A question (or two) of procedure, etc.
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:26:19 GMT
Just a few points:

 1. No single individual can "make a process more formal". If the
    project itself wants more process, and to make it more formal,
    then all is good. If a single committer decides on his/her
    own to add process *which is not formally required by the
    ASF* then committers are free to discuss and even ignore
    that process. If in doubt, ping others and, eventually,

 2. ASF Projects are, well, ASF projects. They are external
    adjuncts of corporate projects, and so having processes
    "flow" into the ASF project due to "requirements" from
    one's employer is *definitely* a NoNo.

With all that said, Martin's process flow is a Good One and
should the PMC decide it is the official procedure to follow,
then the project would be the better for it.

On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Martin Sebor <> wrote:

> Anyone is welcome to express their opinion here, especially
> if you are or have in the past contributed to the project.
> The weight of the opinion is (or should be) commensurate to
> the value of the contributions. I think the ASF calls this
> Meritocracy.
> I made the stdcxx process increasingly more formal as I learned
> from my own past mistakes that a loose process makes it harder
> to track changes and find the root cause of the problems they
> sometimes introduce. In practical terms, I've made an effort
> to have an issue, with a test case if possible, for every
> change made to the code, and commit a regression test into
> the test suite for every bug fix.
> FWIW, in my day to day job, this is a requirement. Cisco
> doesn't make a change to its code without an issue. My team
> does the same with GCC changes. We find that projects that
> don't follow this practice as closely (e.g., GNU Binutils),
> tend to be more difficult for us to work with than those
> that do.
> That being said, when it comes to the stdcxx configuration
> machinery, or to the test suite, I think it's fine to be
> somewhat less formal. We don't need test cases for problems
> in configuration tests, or necessarily even test cases
> reproducing failures in library tests (although small tests
> can often be more useful than the large tests we have in
> the test suite). We also don't need tests for makefile bugs.
> Outside of that, when it comes to changing the library, I
> do recommend making an effort to create test cases and open
> issues for all changes.
> Martin
> On 09/06/2012 12:37 PM, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>> Liviu Nicoara<>  writes:
>>> What is the latest policy in what regards trivial fixes, e.g., the
>>> volatile qualifier for the max var in LIMITS.cpp we discussed earlier,
>>> etc.? It seems excessive to create a bug report for such issues.
>> My advice based on some observations with other projects, is that in
>> these cases we go just go on and apply fix. Non invasive code quality
>> improvements over the codebase should be promoted not hindered. More
>> risky patches, should be discussed on the list, the ones that needs
>> either serious changes, attention, re-factoring, feature or fixes that
>> may break something should be logged in Jira.
>> So I vote for keeping the changes as lightweight as possible, and avoid
>> extra bureaucracy if it makes sense. This assumption is based that
>> developers here trust their selves, and run the tests often. I'm not
>> subscribed to the commit list here, but if I do - I usually follow
>> people's changes and assume that developers do read commit lists.
>> So the general consensus from my experience with other project was: not
>> sure - ask.
>> That's my experience, also I don't have full rights to express my
>> opinion right now about stdcxx.
>>> Also, IIUC from reading previous discussions, forward and backward
>>> binary compatible changes go in 4.2.x, followed by merges to 4.3.x and
>>> trunk. Am I getting this right?
>> Every project has certain branch strategy, I'm not sure about this so
>> maybe Martin can advice. I prefer to develop on trunk and cherry pick
>> to the other branches avoiding bulk merges (and that's in both
>> directions).
>>> Also, besides the Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, Solaris builds hosted on Apache (Jenkins)
is anybody building on HP-UX, AIX, etc.?
>>> Thanks.
>>> Liviu
>> --
>> Wojciech Meyer

View raw message