Wes Hardaker wrote:
1) I think we're close to resolution on the MinGW issue. Here's my take:
a) lack of compilation on a major architecture is something I'd like to fix if we can (I'm with Dave, I'm a unix bigot but I'm trying not to let that influence this message). Thus, I'd be for the simple (.h only) MinGW patch iff [sic!] it doesn't break Cygwin and the normal MS compiler and we check this.
I can confirm that the patch does not break Cygwin. In fact the patch needs to be modified to fix Cygwin as well as MinGW. Cygwin is broken in exactly the same way MinGW was.
b) if (a) then we MUST slip a week. I agree with Dave that this is
another one of those "shouldn't break anything" cases. Note the
"should" as opposed to "definitely won't".
See above.
2) the current vote, given my thinking that it should be done, is 4 in favor and 1 against. I'm assuming that Andy is in favor here, though he didn't state that clearly that I could see (please do so or state another opinion). That leaves us at +3 which means we should apply it.
Yes, I think the patch should be applied.
3) The purpose of a democratic mechanism for determining what goes in is to ensure that if we screw up we have lots of people to blame. Spread the blame is my new motto ;-) Thus, if this breaks then Dave will know just who to laugh at (4 of us, no less).
I can deal with the pointing and laughing, I am the only real Linux advocate in a group of Windows admins (which means I am usually the one point and laughing, but regardless... :-) ).
Reasons for the new policy:
a) it forces review. We've just proved this is a good thing (Robert caught a bug before it got committed).
b) We're getting bigger. Thus we need to spread out the blame^H^H^H^H^Hresponsibility.
So, in light of the above and assuming things don't change:
1) tomorrow I'l push rc3 tomorrow with the patch assuming that: a) Andy responds saying he's for it and my guess above is right.
Done. Consider this my official statement to the press: I am behind the release of rc3 with the patch in question applied.
b) someone tests MinGW (done), cygwin (Andy is doing this?) and the
MS compiler (anyone???)
Cygwin has been tested, and confirmed that the patch neither fixed nor broke it.
>2) if the conditions in 1 are not met by tomorrow, I'll publish 5.2 instead.
[side note: next friday will be the final day of the IETF, which as we all know is a historic time for me to publish a release while sitting in the back of a meeting room ;-]
Well you should have something to publish anyway :-)
Andy
-- -------------------------- Andy Smith, MCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
