stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.me...@arm.com>
Subject Re: New committers?
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:42:17 GMT
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> writes:

> So how are/were they committers??

Hi!

Chime in - I think we need to clarify what kind of problems we have with
stdcxx being hosted as an Apache project.

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)
- 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)

Could somebody just prepare a list of impediments, and possible
solutions, we can all workout a single solution that everybody will at
least accept - I really don't want to lose faith in stdcxx - especially
in such conditions.

I still want to contribute, as Christopher said is a critical part of
the C++ stack. We got a commit access, and the list seems to be more
lively these days, so why not really try to do something useful with
this!

AFAIK there are 3 sides of this discussion:

* Jim who wants to put the project into attic, but what he really cares is
how to resurrect stdcxx, as it's an exceptional project for Apache.
* Christopher who also thinks the project is exceptional, and should
change the way we handle certain things.
* and the rest who actually want to commit something and actually start
developing, right?

I can understand that putting stdcxx into attic might have a negative
impact on the development, but doesn't inhibit forking. I'd vote not for
putting attic still, as perhaps in case of stdcxx and current state of
tools it might be that the project will not survive it, surely that's
not Christopher, board and the rest of the developers want.

So we agree on one thing, don't want to lose stdcxx and have freedom of
the C++ standard library with frequent updates, and speed of development
that is concurrent to gcc's libc++ and Clang libraries with a liberal
license.

So what we need to submit from everybody (not trying to be bossy this
time :-))
1) list of *real* impediments, concrete examples: so we can workout the
plan. Bullet points would be great, similar to facts table Christopher
has submitted.
2) list of our commitments vs. stdcxx: who is going to do what in the
meantime.

#1: Nothing comes to my mind right now, apart from not putting into
attic for time being please, but I understand other people might have a
lot of to say.

#2: I plan to commit my patches to armcc port of stdcxx in the short
time, and perhaps help with the Clang port as somebody already have
mentioned, this certainly needs to be discussed!

Cheers,
Wojciech


Mime
View raw message