stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: 4.2.0-rc-5 plans
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:12:23 GMT
Andrew Black wrote:
> Greetings all.
> On Friday, Martin performed a fairly major merge from trunk to
> branches/4.2.0.  The current results of this merge from nightly testing
> can be found at .  A handful

Just a correction for those who haven't been able to get the link
to work -- the working link has a dash before the '5':

> of the platforms in the list (hpux-11.23-ia64, hpux-11.31-pa,
> irix-6.5-mips, solaris-10-sparc) don't have -rc5 results, either because
> the hardware used in the testing is offline (hpux-11.31-pa and
> irix-6.5-mips), or processing other requests (hpux-11.23-ia64 and
> solaris-10-sparc).
> 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,

I don't know the full set of changes that were made on the branch
today so I tend to agree. I'd rather us err on the side of caution
and tag the changes that we already have a comprehensive set of
results for. It's likely there will be another tag after -rc-5
in any case so we won't be creating more work for ourselves by
not including these changes in the -rc-5 tag.


> in part because I
> have some results from running the tests and examples under Rational
> PurifyPlus 7.0 ( )
> which I plan to post shortly.  This build was made using trunk at
> r580086 plus part of the patch attached to STDCXX-573.  SVN trunk at
> r580086 should be identical to branches/4.2.0 at r580483, assuming the
> merge ran correctly.
> Opinions, please?
> --Andrew Black

View raw message