On 2/17/15, 4:41 PM, "Cantor, Scott" wrote:
>
>Is this the document mentioned earlier?
>
>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xerces/c/admin/release-procedure.txt
>
>If you could at least skim it for any errors, that would be a big help.
Never mind, I missed the note at the top, from you in fact.
-- Sc
On 2/17/15, 4:00 PM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>
>> As far as docs go, I obviously need specifics.
>
>You will have to go through the website docs and figure what needs
>updating. If something specific is unclear, ask and I will try to
>help. But don't expect me to provide a step-by-step guide for
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> I don't either, but to be blunt, the branch shouldn't be in the state it's
> in if you think it needs that much testing, because if a security issue
> pops up, you don't have the luxury of taking a lot of time.
>
> I completely understand your point about usi
On 2/17/15, 3:01 PM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>
>See it from my POV: I have a ton of users that are pretty happy with
>3.1.1. Now comes Scott and wants to cut a half-tested release just
>to satisfy his immediate needs. Once you do this I will start getting
>emails from my users saying why doesn't
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> It's been years, Boris. I think you're being very aggressive here with
> somebody trying to help and able to do so only within the limits of his
> own funding and project needs. That's how this stuff works. If you're
> going to set requirements that I can't m
On 2/17/15, 9:10 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>
>> I've reviewed all the resolved issues against the trunk, and backported
>> 15-20 or so to the branch.
>>
>> Once I have access I'll commit.
>
>Before you do this have someone review your back-ports to double
>check there are no ABI breakages.
I
On 2/17/15, 9:07 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>
>> I definitely don't have the cycles for a beta and it wouldn't fit my
>> timeline anway.
>
>Then you shouldn't be making the release.
No, I shouldn't, but I didn't see any real alternative either. If somebody
else is going to, I can easily step
On 2/17/15, 9:01 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>
>What about other platforms?! If this class is defined in a public header
>(i.e., a header that is installed) and the function is virtual, then this
>is an ABI change.
It's a struct, in an impl/ header marked as "do not use", and the struct
itself
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> I've reviewed all the resolved issues against the trunk, and backported
> 15-20 or so to the branch.
>
> Once I have access I'll commit.
Before you do this have someone review your back-ports to double
check there are no ABI breakages.
Boris
---
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> I definitely don't have the cycles for a beta and it wouldn't fit my
> timeline anway.
Then you shouldn't be making the release.
> I'm on VC10 for my builds, and I believe those are already there.
What about other users of Xerces-C++? When we publish a new
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> Correction, it's not an ABI change, the pool entry class isn't exported on
> Windows...
What about other platforms?! If this class is defined in a public header
(i.e., a header that is installed) and the function is virtual, then this
is an ABI change.
Boris
I've reviewed all the resolved issues against the trunk, and backported
15-20 or so to the branch.
Once I have access I'll commit.
I don't have access to Jira either of course. I "watched" everything I
backported for now, I can at least note it in a comment, but I can't alter
the fix versions
On 2/16/15, 2:51 PM, "Cantor, Scott" wrote:
>
>The fix on trunk changes the ABI by adding a length field to the string
>pool entries. I probably can come up with one that doesn't by just doing
>the length checking, at the cost of some efficiency.
Correction, it's not an ABI change, the pool e
On 2/16/15, 11:52 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote:
>Unless you are prepared to do a good amount of testing (I can help
>somewhat but you will have to take the lead, e.g., package a beta,
>announce it, etc, etc), I would strongly suggest that you do the
>bug-fix release (i.e., 3.1.2). Simply back-port
Hi Scott,
Cantor, Scott writes:
> FWIW, I've done very little testing of trunk other than building it,
> so I don't have a sense of how good a shape it's in or how much has
> changed.
Unless you are prepared to do a good amount of testing (I can help
somewhat but you will have to take the lead,
> Its not very active these days. I don't think we have an official policy on
> Committers from other areas having access. I think it would be great so will
> grant you access if no one objects over the weekend.
I'll stand by. FWIW, I've done very little testing of trunk other than building
it, s
Hey Scott,
Its not very active these days. I don't think we have an official policy on
Committers from other areas having access. I think it would be great so will
grant you access if no one objects over the weekend.
There is also a security patch we need to sea with (will mail you privately
l
> We need a 3.1.2 release very badly. I'm willing to contribute heavily to that
> process.
Correcting myself, I see that the fix I need was applied to trunk and is part
of, I guess, what would be 3.2, not 3.1.2. I'm not sure if either branch is
active at this point, but if not, I probably have
18 matches
Mail list logo
