You're right, it's the maintainer's job to make sure (at least) the Vendor Defined features are conditionally compiled. I've tried to stay on top of that in reviews, but I'm a sub-maintainer so many things get merged without my review.
I am often asking folks to add conditional compile (you can probably find lots of my comments in gerrit saying so) but beyond that I don't know if anyone is really tracking that. It would be a nice cleanup step to change all conditional compilation defines to "VENDOR_FEATURE_xxxxxxxx" or something, so that we don't have to add another wiki page nobody knows about saying what they are :) Anyone want to step up and submit a patch to that effect for the currently-conditionally-compiled features that are not in Spec? If it's purely #define naming change, we can still merge it into 1.3-rel before the 1.3.1 RC tags start coming in (~2 weeks from now). Thanks, Nathan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dev] direct pairing On 08/18/2017 11:20 AM, Heldt-Sheller, Nathan wrote: > Hi George, > > Direct Pairing wasn’t ever a Specified feature; it was a Vendor Defined > feature that shouldn’t have been compiled in by default in the first place > (all vendor-defined features should be conditionally compiled out by default). > > For Vendor Defined features, the deprecation process is up to the > contributing vendor… it’s possible that code can just be removed if it’s no > longer wanted by the contributing vendor, etc. How would one tell? things named "directpairing" are included in csdk/security and in resource/examples and in resource/csdk/stack/samples/linux/secure, with no hint of conditional compilation. Can we come up with some way of identifying/segmenting "vendor defined" so it's clear what they are, whether or not they're conditionally compiled? Certainly such things should not be prohibited in the codebase, but when you can't tell what the consequences of using are, it's a bit of a pain. I don't even see any comments in the source files I find, or the build scripts, that there's anything not-in-the-standard about these. Just Nathan's knowledge of the spec, at the moment :) _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
