Hi Scott,

Cantor, Scott <canto...@osu.edu> writes:

> 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 
> say.

See it from my POV: I have a ton of users that are pretty happy with
3.1.1. Now comes Scott and wants to cut a half-tested release just
to satisfy his immediate needs. Once you do this I will start getting
emails from my users saying why doesn't my stuff (which depends on
Xerces-C++) works in this or that situation. I don't want that.



> 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.

Nobody is talking about months. Here is what I suggest you do:

1. Prepare the release (with all the updates to docs, new projects,
   etc).
   
2. Publish it as a pre-release for, say, a week (i.e., announce on
   the lists).
   
3. I will test it to the best of my abilities (even though I have
   absolutely zero time for it right now) and report any problems
   (I will also review the changes for any ABI breakage).
   
4. If all looks good, you publish the release.

BTW, I am surprised you had to back-port so many bug fixes to the
3.1 branch. Normally anything that is backwards-compatible gets
committed to both head and 3.1. Are you sure you are using 3.1
and not, say, 3.1.1?

Boris

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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