stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <Andrew.Bl...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: [disscuss] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:48:53 GMT
Like Farid, I too am willing to help process patches for review and 
submission. Once a track record has been established, someone on the PMC 
would likely raise a motion to designate you as a committer, as defined 
at http://stdcxx.apache.org/#committers . This would allow you to make 
changes directly to subversion without assistance. Do note that in order 
to be designated as such, you will need to have a Contributor License 
Agreement ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ) on file with the 
Apache foundation. If you are being paid to perform this work, the 
company you work for will likely need to have a Corporate Contributor 
License Agreement ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt ) 
on file.

If we are trying to revitalize this project, there are a few things I 
personally would/would not like to see in the patches:
* I would not like to see major changes to the build infrastructure at 
this time. One of the goals of this project has been portability, and 
this includes the build infrastructure. My understanding is that gmake 
is considered to be more portable than some of the alternatives (cmake, 
ant).
* I would like to see tests added to verify any library changes. Ideally 
the new tests will pass on most platforms, though we don't currently 
have an automated test mechanism in place. If any existing tests are 
incorrect, commentary for the change about why they are broken would be 
appreciated.
* Changes destined for the 4.2.x branch should have forwards and 
backwards binary compatibility.
* Changes destined for the 4.3.x branch should have backwards source 
compatibility.

--Andrew Black

On 02/03/2012 03:04 PM, Farid Zaripov wrote:
> On 03.02.2012 1:52, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> 2. Someone with stdcxx commit privileges should be part of this
>> reunification (for obvious reasons). It is very discouraging to submit
>> patches knowing full well and ahead of time that they will never make
>> it anywhere. Perhaps the process of submitting patches could be
>> somewhat less of a "process". Just my 0.02. --Stefan
>
>     Stefan, if you split the all your patches to a set of small finalized
> changes and submit them through a set of corresponding issues in JIRA, I
> promise I will process them all one by one.
> At the moment I don't see any issues, reported by you. Sorry, but
> process is a process.
>
> Farid.
>

Mime
View raw message