On 16/11/2017 19:12, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:40:08 +0100
François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Let me be more clear: I'm not going to review further patches in this
area while you two are proposing different alternatives, without
commenting on each other's approach.
If you think your solution is better than François's solution, you
should explain why, not just send a different patch. If François
thinks his solution is better than yours, he should state why, not
just send a different patch.
I don't have time to infer all that from just your patches, so I'm not
going to bother.
Proposing to revert my patch doesn't sound to me like a friendly action
to start a collaboration.
I'm already say that this is technical issue: this patch present only in
trunk yet.
Doesn't explain why you want to revert it.
Series is more useful for applying in different branches.
Which branches ? There are mostly maintenance branches. None of your
patches is fixing a bug so it won't go to a maintenance branch.
BTW, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00037.html
was inspired by you https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00029.html
Which was already rejected, why submitting it again ?
So current implementation is
just fine to me and I'll let Petr argument for any change.
Please, clear for me: what is the "current implementation"?
Is it what we see now in trunk?
Yes. Other proposals were mostly code quality changes. None of them had
no impact so Jonathan decision to keep current implementation is just fine.
