On 09/06/12 14:37, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms> 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.?
Thanks.
Liviu
