Cogitri opened a new pull request #8: cmake: use HAVE_SIZE_OF_S{,S}IZE_T to
check if it's available
URL: https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/pull/8
Previously if(SIZE_OF_S{,S}IZE_T) was used, which apparently isn't
reliable on some platforms/CMake versions. See XERCESC-2194
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2194?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17053133#comment-17053133
]
Rasmus Thomsen commented on XERCESC-2194:
-
https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/pull/8
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2194?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17053130#comment-17053130
]
Rasmus Thomsen commented on XERCESC-2194:
-
So I just tested this on our Windows machine and it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17053366#comment-17053366
]
Sylvain Beucler commented on XERCESC-2188:
--
For the record, there is another patch attempt
On 3/6/20, 12:01 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
> Just to confirm my understanding, you would like to create the 3.2-series
> branch in order to release 3.2.3 with some cherry-picked commits, correct?
That's the intended branch, but the purpose isn't to immediately release a
3.2.3, it's to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17053450#comment-17053450
]
Scott Cantor commented on XERCESC-2188:
---
I was not aware, thank you.
I'm happy to look, but the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17053458#comment-17053458
]
Scott Cantor commented on XERCESC-2188:
---
My impression is that your proposed fix is probably a
Cantor, Scott writes:
> Normally I wouldn't be keen to branch now if the next patch was to 3.2,
> but because the changes are so minimal now, maintaining patches to two
> branches would not be very much work.
Ok, makes sense, thanks.
On 3/6/20, 9:23 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
> Ok, makes sense, thanks.
There's also apparently some movement on 2188 from the Debian team, they may
have a fix for the open security issue, but it may require a 3.3 anyway.
I may have mispoke in that issue too: is there any formal definition of
Cantor, Scott writes:
> I may have mispoke in that issue too: is there any formal definition of
> which include directories are "API" and which should be off limits for
> library clients?
I am not aware though from the names internal/ and dom/impl/ should be
off-limits while everything else is
On 3/6/20, 9:56 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
> I am not aware though from the names internal/ and dom/impl/ should be
> off-limits while everything else is probably fair game.
I'm happy if we decide we just say that since it addresses this particular
case, but names aside I don't think there
Hi Scott,
I wanted to check with you what the policy was regarding the requirement
for an Apache CLA for code contributions. Does this apply for the case
of simple and obvious one-liners and other fairly trivial fixes as
opposed to more substantial work which is actually creative?
Are
12 matches
Mail list logo
