Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On January 12, 2006 3:26:52 PM -0700 Martin Sebor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I created a new tarball incorporating these changes and replaced
the old one with it. Here's the link again for convenience:
http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx/stdcxx-incubating-4.1.3.tar.gz
The md5sum for this file is f1bc9bd5ef0966f994a9183e7353176d.
Since these were the only changes I only smoke-tested this new tarball
with gcc 3.2.3 on Linux and gcc 4.0.2 Solaris with successul results.
I hereby cast my +1 vote to publish this tarball :)
+1 with Solaris 10/Forte 11.
The test cases say everything 'failed', but I'm not sure that it isn't
really a false positive. It looks okay otherwise as far as I can tell.
Assuming the failures came out of invoking make run they are bogus.
We've changed the output of the ported tests but haven't changed
the infrastructure to recognize the new ouptut. Running some of
the tests manually should confirm this.
I assume everyone else's votes are still good and that we just need
a positive vote from you, Bill, or Ben before we can ask the Incubator
PMC for permission to publish it.
Nope. Typically, any changes to the code contained in a release
invalidates all previous votes. Nice try. =)
Okay, I'll collect new votes from the original voters and keep this
rule in mind in the future.
In the future, you should not reuse the version - therefore, this should
really be 4.1.4. Once, 4.1.3 is posted, it's 'gone' (regardless of
whether it passes or not). Therefore, a vote should be with respect to
a specific tarball. If that tarball changes (and a new version is
pushed out), you need to get the minimum 3 +1s on that specific tarball.
This is an interesting policy that I think deserves to be discussed
further. Let me comment on it in a separate thread so as not to
detract from the vote.
Thanks!
Martin
