I'll checkin the code this week - was trying to get a working env with he branch, and was having the usual issues. Don't know how far we're taking this , but would be nice to leave the build cleaner and more stable...
A Sent from my iThingie On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ariel; > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ariel Constenla-Haile <[email protected]> > > >> >> Hi Pedro, >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 09:07:03AM -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> There is currently nothing here, in fact trunk is more up to date. >>> Can I start committing stuff or should Andrew do it? >> >> IMHO only Andrew, as Oracle representative, can commit the patches. The >> idea is to ensure that patches are granted by Oracle without the need to >> ask for another software grant for this particular cws. I guess this >> should be the procedure people should follow if interested in getting >> cws code granted by Oracle; the other way is to ask for a software grant >> on every file in the cws, but I guess that this won't scale (Oracle will >> have to redo the same amount of work they did for the original software >> grant). > > OK, I can wait. > >> Concerning this particular case, once Andrew commits the patches, there >> should be some agreement on what to do: IMHO, the first thing should be >> to ensure that the code builds in Windows, Linux and MacOSX (that cws >> didn't originally take into account OS2 nor FreeBSD), otherwise there is >> the chance that changes made for OS2/FreeBSD/Solaris/etc end up breaking >> something that was actually working in the cws; and it may be then hard >> to guess where and why it got broken (just like the boost/stlport case). > > I expect the only files that I have to touch are FreeBSD specific so that > probably won't be the case here. In any case I would expect the branch > won't be merged into trunk until any issue with the FreeBSD and/or > Linux/Mac Windows ports are fixed. > > cheers, > > Pedro.
