Hi Scott, Cantor, Scott <canto...@osu.edu> writes:
> I don't either, but to be blunt, the branch shouldn't be in the state it's > in if you think it needs that much testing, because if a security issue > pops up, you don't have the luxury of taking a lot of time. > > I completely understand your point about using the trunk, and I agree with > it. It's not worth the risk. But any fixes to the branch should be very > carefully looked at, in which case testing can be fairly pro-forma. It is no so much the changes that I am worried about. It is the fact that a lot of outside things (platforms, compilers, libraries, etc) that Xerces-C++ depends on have changed a lot. But, also, knowing what kind of a rotten mess Xerces-C++ code base is, it is hard to know what even a trivial change will trip up. > I am not going to add in project files for a compiler I can't test. That > flies in the face of the exact point you made above. If you think the > files on trunk work, we can add them. Add them and I will test. > As far as docs go, I obviously need specifics. You will have to go through the website docs and figure what needs updating. If something specific is unclear, ask and I will try to help. But don't expect me to provide a step-by-step guide for you. I unfortunately really don't have the time for that right now. > Do you think I do have time? I am not asking you to do anything. > After about 2011-2012 or so, the branch simply died. Every fix was applied > to trunk only, even when it was minor. Ok, I guess I missed that. Boris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-h...@xerces.apache.org
