> This was a good week. We got a number of patches from the community and
> four different submitters introduced breaks. I needed to refine at least
> three patches. I think its a good time to share my philosophy, and open it
> up for debate.
>
I need to add an addendum... Make that "I needed
You're doing a great job, Jeffrey. I'm happy to see Crypto++ being
maintained so diligently, and with such precise attention to detail. Thank
you!
On Sep 22, 2016 3:47 AM, "Jeffrey Walton" wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This was a good week. We got a number of patches from the community and
> four di
> Sixth, learning from mistakes and is not license to lower expectations. Each
> time I broke the code, I looked beyond the instance problem and questioned
> why it happened in the first place. I then placed controls to stop future
> breaks. Of all the controls that can be placed, we achieve the hi
Hi Everyone,
This was a good week. We got a number of patches from the community and
four different submitters introduced breaks. I needed to refine at least
three patches. I think its a good time to share my philosophy, and open it
up for debate.
First, Master needs to be mostly stable. Users
