Re: [VOTE] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?

[Farid Zaripov]

On 02.02.2012 19:03, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

Fans and contributors,

it appears that the stdcxx project is entirely dormant.  The ASF has
launched a new 'Attic' project over the past two years, to neatly
retire dormant works until and unless a community comes along who
wishes to revive the effort.

As a simple formality your votes please;

  [ ] +1 - stdcxx committee should be retired, with code sent to the Attic

  [X] -1 - No, stdcxx should not fold, I am still contributing, and
   [would serve|am serving] on its project management committee

The results of this vote will be taken up by the ASF Board of Directors
at their 15 Feb meeting.


  I have not too much time for active developing the stdcxx, but I can 
review user patches, test them on a set of Microsoft compilers and 
commit into svn.
In the other words, I can provide support of the stdcxx to the users if 
any exist :). Also I plan to smoothly move the stdcxx in the C++ 0x 
direction.

So my vote is: -1

Farid.

Re: [disscuss] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?

[Farid Zaripov]

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.

Re: [disscuss] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?

[Andrew Black]

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 http://stdcxx.apache.org/#committers . 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 ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ) 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 ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt ) 
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.