stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
Subject Re: [disscuss] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:15:49 GMT
OK I will start submitting patches at stdcxx. Breaking them up into
smaller chunks will increase the number of patches though. :-) Stay

I don't intend to push changes to the build system - we use gmake to
build stdcxx at Oracle.



On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 16:48, Andrew Black <> wrote:
> 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
> . 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 (
> ) 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 (
> ) 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.

Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message