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.


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