+1 to move forward. For the next snapshot without stlport, we need to plan testing on all the platforms (Windows/Redhat/Suse/Ubuntu/Mac). But I agree that acceptance level testing will be enough.
- Shenfeng (Simon) 2013/5/31 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > On 5/31/13 9:16 AM, Herbert Dürr wrote: > > [regarding dropping stlport4] > > > > The changes to make the codebase ready for native STL support are done. > > Builds with stlport4 enabled will continue to work as before. > > > > I suggest to use the --without-stlport option for all new builds though: > > Stlport is a great project, but the versions that OOo depended on had > > been released more than ten years ago. The library improved greatly > > since then from a feature, performance and standard compliance > > perspective. And of course many many bugs have been fixed [1]. In their > > stlport5 version they continue to improve significantly. > > > > Platform STLs have been inspired by stlport, improved greatly too and in > > the C++11 standardization process divergent views have consolidated. We > > can rely on the platform STLs. I agree that the timing of the suggested > > switch is not so good but the switch itself is overdue. A major version > > change is the right time to do this. > > > > [1] relevant examples of fixes that got into stlport releases newer than > > the ones OOo depended on can be seen at e.g. > > > http://stlport.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=stlport/stlport;a=blob;f=etc/ChangeLog;hb=refs/tags/STLport-STLPORT_4_6 > > > > > > On 2013/05/28 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> In theory every fix can cause bugs. But some fixes are more localized > >> than others. Fixes with localized impact are easier to test. > >> Widespread fixes are harder to test, because more code is potentially > >> broken. > > > > The switch was rendered possible by many little changes over the last > > couple of months which got our code base more in line with C++11 > > expectations. Snapshots based on these changes have been and are already > > extensively tested by our great QA community. The switch itself is just > > another step in evolving towards a high quality release. > > > > Additionally testing has it much easier to find issues introduced by the > > switch should there be any. E.g. we have many testers and almost a > > thousand automatic tests. They work on different platforms. They cover a > > lot of different areas. The risk that a regression in that layer could > > remain undetected is very low. > > > > Automated testing ran its 940 autotests (in BVT, FVT, SVT and PVT) on > > different operating systems for 32bit and 64bit versions. The > > cross-correlation between pre- and post-switch builds is the same as the > > auto-correlation for test reruns: the same tests were successful on both > > sides, the same tests failed for both sides. > > to make clear that this is a very important and useful step forward. We > have to do something to be able for a compiler switch and be prepared > for the next steps etc.. Not only on MacOS but also on FreeBSD, the > clang compiler don't like the old stlport version ;-) To be serious an > upgrade to stlport 5 for example won't help us really. It is the same to > switch to a new version or to get rid of this external library > completely. We prefer the latter one. > > The working automated tests (at least same result as before) makes me > confident that the change is ok. > > I propose that we prepare the next snapshot without stlport and will see > what happened with our testing. If we run into obvious problems with the > stl we will switch back immediately. > > Juergen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
