On 2/17/15, 9:07 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" <bo...@codesynthesis.com> wrote:
>> I definitely don't have the cycles for a beta and it wouldn't fit my 
>> timeline anway.
>Then you shouldn't be making the release.

No, I shouldn't, but I didn't see any real alternative either. If somebody 
else is going to, I can easily step back.

>>I'm on VC10 for my builds, and I believe those are already there.
>What about other users of Xerces-C++? When we publish a new release,
>it is presumed that it will work on all commonly-used platforms and
>compilers, not only what Scott Cantor needs.

It's been years, Boris. I think you're being very aggressive here with 
somebody trying to help and able to do so only within the limits of his 
own funding and project needs. That's how this stuff works. If you're 
going to set requirements that I can't meet, then there's not much I can 

>Bare minimum is to make sure 3.1.2 is as good quality as 3.1.1.

I can't go back and review every commit you all have made. I can be very 
careful with any commits *I* make, and I can test my use cases and allow a 
bit of time beyond that. If you're asking me to wait months, no, I can't 
do that. I have constraints too.

> I don't think you are approaching it with the right attitude. If all
>you need is a bug-fix that only has to work for your specific case,
>then just provide a patch (or a patched version of Xerces-C++) to
>your users.

I probably would consider that, if it weren't for the fact that Red Hat 
and other distros have shipped your code.

And I'm not the only one who needs fixes. A simple review of Jira 
demonstrates that very easily.

-- Scott

To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-h...@xerces.apache.org

Reply via email to