te needed
build boilerplate.
Just mine 2 cents,
Wojciech
From: Andrew Black [andrew.bl...@roguewave.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:48 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [disscuss] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?
Like Farid, I too a
Stefan,
Smaller, independent patches are better for a few reasons: they
are easier to review, and easier to back out if they cause trouble.
In addition, they'll give you the opportunity to get comfortable
with the process. After you submit a few good patches over a period
of time we'll also be ab
OK I will start submitting patches at stdcxx. Breaking them up into
smaller chunks will increase the number of patches though. :-) Stay
tuned.
I don't intend to push changes to the build system - we use gmake to
build stdcxx at Oracle.
--Stefan
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 16:48, Andrew Black w
Like Farid, I too am willing to help process patches for review and
submission. Once a track record has been established, someone on the PMC
would likely raise a motion to designate you as a committer, as defined
at http://stdcxx.apache.org/#committers . This would allow you to make
changes dir
On 03.02.2012 1:52, Stefan Teleman wrote:
2. Someone with stdcxx commit privileges should be part of this
reunification (for obvious reasons). It is very discouraging to submit
patches knowing full well and ahead of time that they will never make
it anywhere. Perhaps the process of submitting p
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 17:57, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> The much larger issue is that the ASF is designed as a collaboration
> hub where multiple consumers can be represented. It is designed to
> avoid the need for forks except in radical divisions within communities
> where two or more group
On 2/2/2012 2:17 PM, Andrew Black wrote:
> While I am not completely familiar with the process, I took a couple minutes
> to look at
> the website for the Attic project ( http://attic.apache.org/ ), and I thought
> I'd
> summarize the implications of this move as I understand them.
Good summary.
