stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <>
Subject Re: A question (or two) of procedure, etc.
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:57:00 GMT
On 09/06/12 14:37, 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.
> 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.

Makes sense. Thanks.

> 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.

I sure hope we can have totally open (civilized) discussions going forward. :)

>> 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).

Right... I saw some discussions from a while back about active development on 4.2.x with integration
to other branches as dictated by compatibility (e.g., integrating 4.2.x -> 4.3.x and 4.2.x
-> 4.2.1), and reintegration to trunk as needed. I am not looking to change any such policy
just wanna make sure I am not messing something up.

>> Also, besides the Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, Solaris builds hosted on Apache (Jenkins)
is anybody building on HP-UX, AIX, etc.?



View raw message