Hi John, On 15/09/2015 12:02, John Spray wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> With Infernalis Ceph move to c++11 (and CMake), we will see more conflicts when backporting bug fixes to Hammer. Any ideas you may have to better deal with this would be most welcome. Since these conflicts will be mostly cosmetic, they should not be too difficult to resolve. The trick will be for someone not familiar with the codebase to separate what is cosmetic and what is not. >> >> This does not happen yet, no immediate concern :-) Maybe if we think about that well in advance we'll be in a better position to deal with it later on ? > > I think this came up in conversation but wasn't necessarily made > official policy yet -- my understanding is that we are (already) > endeavouring to avoid c++11isms in bug fixes, along with the usual > principle of fixing bugs in the smallest/neatest patch we can. > > Perhaps in cases where those of us working on master mistakenly put > something un-backportable in a bug fix, it would be reasonable for the > backporter to point it out and poke us for a clean version of the > patch. We'll do our best but it's very reassuring to know we can rely on you if we struggle with c++11isms :-) Thanks ! -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
