Hi michael,
michael meeks wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 22:49 +0200, Pavel JanÃk wrote:
great. Can you do all of your work on 64bit operating systems? ;-)
> The team members should also have a look at the 64-bit CWS
> (ooo64bit02) to see what data sizes they already changed.
In view of the long-standing non-functioningness of the ooo64bit02 cws
- the fact that it breaks 32bit operation ;-), the sheer scale of the
problem and the problems of keeping it synchronized with the latest
developments - conspire to (in Kendy & my opinion[1]) ensure that this
"1 massive cws" will never be finished, and would be really difficult to
test & verify - and even harder to get momentum on getting it up-stream
at all.
Since Heiner is keeping the ooo64bit02 cws update from time to time I'm
not aware of problems to keep it up to date with latestet developments,
at least not a this time.
It makes sense to think about to separate issues from this child
workspace to get them integrated earlier and have the fixes available in
time so that there would by a synergy between ooo64bit02 and warnings01.
In our view it would be far, far better to split up the fixes out of
that wherever possible and merge them as parts of other, smaller,
incremental CWS' - that can be easily reviewed / shown to be safe, and
serve to move the code base to a progressively 64bit-cleaner
environment. That would also allow us to start running tinderbox builds
over the pieces that are known to work to ensure they don't subsequently
break ( at least at compile time ).
ie. it'd be great to see people pulling nice looking bits out of
64bit02 and merging them IMHO ;-)
If the participants see possibilities to divide the problem in
meaningful parts this should be discussed on this list, otherwise we
take the risk of uncoordinated and doubled work,
HTH,
Michael.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
