Hi John, On 15/09/2015 12:02, John Spray wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Loic Dachary <[email protected]> wrote: >> With Infernalis Ceph move to c++11 (and CMake), we will see more conflicts >> when backporting bug fixes to Hammer. Any ideas you may have to better deal >> with this would be most welcome. Since these conflicts will be mostly >> cosmetic, they should not be too difficult to resolve. The trick will be for >> someone not familiar with the codebase to separate what is cosmetic and what >> is not. >> >> This does not happen yet, no immediate concern :-) Maybe if we think about >> that well in advance we'll be in a better position to deal with it later on ? > > I think this came up in conversation but wasn't necessarily made > official policy yet -- my understanding is that we are (already) > endeavouring to avoid c++11isms in bug fixes, along with the usual > principle of fixing bugs in the smallest/neatest patch we can. > > Perhaps in cases where those of us working on master mistakenly put > something un-backportable in a bug fix, it would be reasonable for the > backporter to point it out and poke us for a clean version of the > patch.
We'll do our best but it's very reassuring to know we can rely on you if we struggle with c++11isms :-) Thanks ! -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
