It failed. I implicitly took Uber's dev environment concern as a -1.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Andrew Schwartzmeyer <
and...@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote:
> Do we know where this went? When are we doing the upgrade, is something
> still blocking us?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
> On 02/12/2018 2:03 p
Do we know where this went? When are we doing the upgrade, is something
still blocking us?
Thanks,
Andy
On 02/12/2018 2:03 pm, Benjamin Mahler wrote:
I guess we need to test out whether running Mesos built with newer
version
of gcc (also glibc) on older version of distro is safe.
Is it pos
> I guess we need to test out whether running Mesos built with newer version
> of gcc (also glibc) on older version of distro is safe.
Is it possible to install the newer gcc / glibc on Jessie? It seems there
are some comments on the spreadsheet that say the method posted is not safe?
What about
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Zhitao Li wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Michael Park wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li
> wrote:
> >
> > > Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change?
> >
> >
> > There is no deprecation cycle for the proposed ch
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Michael Park wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li wrote:
>
> > Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change?
>
>
> There is no deprecation cycle for the proposed change.
>
I take that the moment we decide this, c++ features which re
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Zhitao Li wrote:
> Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change?
There is no deprecation cycle for the proposed change.
> Our org still uses Debian Jessie and we do not see ourselves off that
> before EOY.
>
This is great! Thanks for sharing. Co
Will there be a deprecation cycle for the proposed change? Our org still
uses Debian Jessie and we do not see ourselves off that before EOY.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:38 AM, James Peach wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Michael Park wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM Jame
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Michael Park wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM James Peach wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on
>> Feb
>>> 21.
>>>
>>> The following are t
+1.
I believe the spreadsheet linked in MESOS-7949 makes it pretty clear that the
benefits outweigh the required build requirement changes.
> On Feb 10, 2018, at 6:28 AM, Michael Park wrote:
>
> I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb
> 21.
>
> The followin
+1 (binding)
Mesos codebase seems to be ready for the upgrade (tested on Mesosphere's
internal CI). I think beginning of 2018 is the right time for this.
In addition to technical reasons mentioned by MPark, I add one more:
modernising the codebase fosters learning, fun, and makes it a more
attrac
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM James Peach wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on
> Feb
> > 21.
> >
> > The following are the proposed changes:
> > - Minimum GCC *4.8.1* => *5*.
> > - Minimu
> On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michael Park wrote:
>
> I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb
> 21.
>
> The following are the proposed changes:
> - Minimum GCC *4.8.1* => *5*.
> - Minimum Clang *3.5* => *3.6*.
> - Minimum Apple Clang *8* => *9*.
>
> We'll
Thanks Andy!
> With respect to Windows, Visual Studio 2017 (MSVC 1910) supports C++14,
> and it's already our minimum required version. See
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/visual-cpp-language-conformance for
> more details. Also, we run with `/permissive-`, which disables
> non-conforming
+1 (binding)
With respect to Windows, Visual Studio 2017 (MSVC 1910) supports C++14,
and it's already our minimum required version. See
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/visual-cpp-language-conformance for
more details. Also, we run with `/permissive-`, which disables
non-conforming constr
I'm going to put this up for a vote. My plan is to bump us to C++14 on Feb
21.
The following are the proposed changes:
- Minimum GCC *4.8.1* => *5*.
- Minimum Clang *3.5* => *3.6*.
- Minimum Apple Clang *8* => *9*.
We'll have a standard voting, at least 3 binding votes, and no -1s.
Thanks!
15 matches
Mail list logo