[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11
From: |
Markus Wanner |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11 |
Date: |
Tue, 13 May 2014 19:29:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0 |
Hey Hendrik,
On 05/13/2014 05:17 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> monotone should definitely be compilable on C++11.
It is. That was one of my goals with release 1.1.
However, wit that release, C++11 still isn't enabled by default (at
least not by our configure script). nvm.optional-cxx11 would change that.
> But it's going to be
> a while before all platforms have C++11 compiler.
Absolutely. We cannot (and haven't ever) support "all" platforms,
though. See my list in response to Stephen.
> I'm thinking of
> things like long-term-support Ubuntu and Debian Squeeze, older Mac's
> which do not receive new OS/X's any more, Windows XP machines, and so
> forth. There are probably even older platforms still in active use
> somewhere. It's not unusual at all for servers to be running stable
> long-term-support versions of software and foregoing the latest and
> greatest for stability.
Please keep in mind that you don't need the new compiler to *run*
monotone. But yeah, I take this as a vote against adapting C++11 now.
> I have noo idea how many of these old systems use monotone.
Sadly, not many. Just one number: Debian popcon lists around 300
installs. Overall. That's 0.13% percent of all popcon-counted systems.
(And that includes my several Debian build animals ;-) )
> I maintain that monotone should remain compilable on older C++
> compilers. At very least, the pre-C++11 version of monotone should be
> its own legacy branch and should continue to receive bugfixes for a
> long time, and should remain net-sync-compatible with the current one.
I heard you.
> Of course, the operational questions here are *when* the transition
> should occur, and how long dual-operation should be supported when it
> does.
I think the answer to the dual-operation duration is obvious: Zero. We
just don't have the man-power.
What do you think would be a good time to switch to C++11?
I'm a bit concerned that botan is switching to C++11. (And just notice
that botan even states gcc-4.7 as the minimum requirement for 1.11 onwards.)
Regards
Markus Wanner
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Monotone-devel] C++11, Markus Wanner, 2014/05/12
- Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11, Markus Wanner, 2014/05/13
- Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11, Jack Lloyd, 2014/05/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11, Markus Wanner, 2014/05/16
- Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11, Hendrik Boom, 2014/05/13
- Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11, Markus Wanner, 2014/05/13