On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2013, at 3:16 AM, "Herbert Dürr" <h...@apache.org> wrote: > > > [regarding dropping stlport4] > > > > The changes to make the codebase ready for native STL support are done. > Builds with stlport4 enabled will continue to work as before. > > > > I suggest to use the --without-stlport option for all new builds though: > Stlport is a great project, but the versions that OOo depended on had been > released more than ten years ago. The library improved greatly since then > from a feature, performance and standard compliance perspective. And of > course many many bugs have been fixed [1]. In their stlport5 version they > continue to improve significantly. > > > > Platform STLs have been inspired by stlport, improved greatly too and in > the C++11 standardization process divergent views have consolidated. We can > rely on the platform STLs. I agree that the timing of the suggested switch > is not so good but the switch itself is overdue. A major version change is > the right time to do this. > > > > [1] relevant examples of fixes that got into stlport releases newer than > the ones OOo depended on can be seen at e.g. > http://stlport.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=stlport/stlport;a=blob;f=etc/ChangeLog;hb=refs/tags/STLport-STLPORT_4_6 > > > > On 2013/05/28 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> In theory every fix can cause bugs. But some fixes are more localized > >> than others. Fixes with localized impact are easier to test. > >> Widespread fixes are harder to test, because more code is potentially > >> broken. > > > > The switch was rendered possible by many little changes over the last > couple of months which got our code base more in line with C++11 > expectations. Snapshots based on these changes have been and are already > extensively tested by our great QA community. The switch itself is just > another step in evolving towards a high quality release. > > > > Additionally testing has it much easier to find issues introduced by the > switch should there be any. E.g. we have many testers and almost a thousand > automatic tests. They work on different platforms. They cover a lot of > different areas. The risk that a regression in that layer could remain > undetected is very low. > > > > Automated testing ran its 940 autotests (in BVT, FVT, SVT and PVT) on > different operating systems for 32bit and 64bit versions. The > cross-correlation between pre- and post-switch builds is the same as the > auto-correlation for test reruns: the same tests were successful on both > sides, the same tests failed for both sides. > > > > This is great. Thanks for giving attention to the quality side of this. > > A change like this is unlikely to introduce a subtle bug in only one > place. If it breaks things it should be spectacular. So the fact that > nothing is seen yet is a good sign. > > -Rob > Yes, thanks Herbert for all this information. And, I see I should start thinking about upgrading to GCC 4.8.1 to comply with C++ 11....really thanks for posting this. > > > > Herbert > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "You can't believe one thing and do another. What you believe and what you do are the same thing." -- Leonard Peltier
