On Wednesday 06 August 2014 19:15:35 John Ralls wrote: > On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 August 2014 16:16:17 Aaron Laws wrote: > >> I tried to follow the directions at > >> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Contributing_to_GnuCash, but I > >> couldn't > >> find a Bugzilla issue encapsulating the Great C++ Refactor. Should > >> I > >> create one so there is a place to put patches? > >> > >> I learned on IRC that it is generally a goal not to have C++ > >> keywords > >> in the Gnucash code base, and this patch is along those ends. I > >> think > >> I got all the C++11 keywords that would interfere with a C++11 > >> compile. If this is an inappropriate patch to submit, please let me > >> know. After my signature, you can find the patch prepared using > >> `git > >> format-patch` (as specified in > >> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git#Patches). Also, I followed the > >> advice of http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Development_Process ("All > >> development should target the *master* branch."). Please let me > >> know > >> if anything looks amiss (the amount of context, using unified diff > >> format, perhaps I should be attaching instead of in-line quotation, > >> etc.). Thanks! > >> > >> In Christ, > > > > Hi Aaron, > > > > Thank you for your patch. I haven't tested it yet but IMO the > > intention is correct. > > > > As for bugzilla: you can create a new bugreport and attach your > > patch there. Attaching it to a mailing list message risks that it > > gets lost in the midst of the ongoing discussions. 'git format- > > patch' is perfectly fine as format. > > > > As for the "All development should target the *master* branch", we > > should change this. That's advice from the svn era. In git bugfixes > > should target the *maint* branch. New features and enhancements > > should target *master*. > > I clarified > http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Development_Process#Developing_New_Featu > res a bit and cleared out all of the old stuff about backports and > audits. I'm not quite satisfied with it, so I'll let it percolate in > my head for a day or two and have another go. If someone else has > some thoughts, by all means dive in. > I altered some more parts that still wrongly suggested all bugfix development should go on master. But I still welcome more improvements and clarifications.
> Let's not have a generic "Convert GnuCash to C++" bug that will > accumulate a zillion patches and a zillion comments. That will just > become a headache. If you (Aaron) would rather attach the patch to a > bug, make it "Remove C++11/14 Keywords"or something, but I'm > perfectly happy using Github pull requests for C++ if that's more > convenient. I don't really see that patch as a bug-fix; it's not a > problem with maint that it doesn't compile in C++. OTOH, *not* > applying it to maint will make it harder to merge into master sooner > than otherwise, so I'm not opposed to it either as long as it passes > `make distcheck`. > Fully agreed. It may be better to apply this one against maint in the hopes it will result in simple merges for a while longer. It has to pass make distcheck of course. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
