Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

It failed. I implicitly took Uber's dev environment concern as a -1. On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Andrew Schwartzmeyer < and...@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote: > Do we know where this went? When are we doing the upgrade, is something > still blocking us? > > Thanks, > > Andy > > On 02/12/2018 2:03

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

Do we know where this went? When are we doing the upgrade, is something still blocking us? Thanks, Andy On 02/12/2018 2:03 pm, Benjamin Mahler wrote: I guess we need to test out whether running Mesos built with newer version of gcc (also glibc) on older version of distro is safe. Is it

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

> I guess we need to test out whether running Mesos built with newer version > of gcc (also glibc) on older version of distro is safe. Is it possible to install the newer gcc / glibc on Jessie? It seems there are some comments on the spreadsheet that say the method posted is not safe? What about

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Zhitao Li wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Michael Park wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li > wrote: > > > > > Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Michael Park wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li wrote: > > > Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change? > > > There is no deprecation cycle for the proposed change. > I take that the

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li wrote: > Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change? There is no deprecation cycle for the proposed change. > Our org still uses Debian Jessie and we do not see ourselves off that > before EOY. > This is

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change? Our org still uses Debian Jessie and we do not see ourselves off that before EOY. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:38 AM, James Peach wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Michael Park wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Michael Park wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM James Peach wrote: > >> >> >>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote: >>> >>> I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

+1. I believe the spreadsheet linked in MESOS-7949 makes it pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the required build requirement changes. > On Feb 10, 2018, at 6:28 AM, Michael Park wrote: > > I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb >

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

+1 (binding) Mesos codebase seems to be ready for the upgrade (tested on Mesosphere's internal CI). I think beginning of 2018 is the right time for this. In addition to technical reasons mentioned by MPark, I add one more: modernising the codebase fosters learning, fun, and makes it a more

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM James Peach wrote: > > > > On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote: > > > > I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on > Feb > > 21. > > > > The following are the proposed changes: > > -

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote: > > I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb > 21. > > The following are the proposed changes: > - Minimum GCC *4.8.1* => *5*. > - Minimum Clang *3.5* => *3.6*. > - Minimum Apple Clang *8*

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

Thanks Andy! > With respect to Windows, Visual Studio 2017 (MSVC 1910) supports C++14, > and it's already our minimum required version. See > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/visual-cpp-language-conformance for > more details. Also, we run with `/permissive-`, which disables > non-conforming

Re: [VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

+1 (binding) With respect to Windows, Visual Studio 2017 (MSVC 1910) supports C++14, and it's already our minimum required version. See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/visual-cpp-language-conformance for more details. Also, we run with `/permissive-`, which disables non-conforming

[VOTE] C++14 Upgrade

I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb 21. The following are the proposed changes: - Minimum GCC *4.8.1* => *5*. - Minimum Clang *3.5* => *3.6*. - Minimum Apple Clang *8* => *9*. We'll have a standard voting, at least 3 binding votes, and no -1s.