+1

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Michael Park <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:36 PM Anand Mazumdar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Are you referring to the spread sheet linked in MESOS-2604 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2604>?
> >
> > AFAICT, it just shows that a particular variant of GCC 4.8+ is available
> > on each of the supported distributions. So, this should not be an issue
> > unless I am missing something?
> >
> > -anand
> >
> > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > When we moved to 4.8 there was a spreadsheet that showed how folks can
> > get
> > > 4.8 on various distributions, have you checked that 4.8.1 is available
> > > across distributions?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Adam Bordelon <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Joris Van Remoortere <
> > >> [email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1 (binding)
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to propose that we bump our minimum supported version
> for
> > >> gcc
> > >>>> from 4.8.0 to 4.8.1. The main motivation behind this is that there
> are
> > >> at
> > >>>> least 2 outstanding reviews on RB that want to use ref-qualifiers <
> > >>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2439.htm>
> > >>>> introduced in GCC 4.8.1. The reviews in question are r41870 <
> > >>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41870> and r41593 <
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/41593/diff/2?file=1173648#file1173648line58
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, our Getting Started document <
> > >>>> http://mesos.apache.org/gettingstarted/> for Mesos already lists
> the
> > >>>> minimum gcc version as > 4.8. Looking at the release timeline <
> > >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/> for GCC, it seems that 4.8.0/4.8.1
> were
> > >>>> released within a week of each other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does anyone have a strong opinion against this change ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -anand
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to