[llvm-dev] [RFC] migrating past C++11

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

I re-read my email and I mistyped it (sorry was in a bus), what you wrote
is exactly what I intended to mean. Thanks Paul.

-- 
Mehdi


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:15 PM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:

> If we claim to support a Thing, then we should accept patches to fix when
> the Thing breaks.  Whether a bot verifies that the Thing works, is not
> really relevant; "support" means "we say this works and will fix it when it
> breaks."
>

>
> A bot is a service to the community in that it can tell you more-or-less
> promptly when you have broken a Thing. It is not the only way to determine
> that you have broken a Thing.  However, it does tell you that you have
> broken a Thing that somebody thinks is worth putting up a bot to verify
> that it stays not-broken.
>
> Given the number of times lately that newcomers have had difficulty
> getting started (because some Thing we claim works, actually doesn't), I
> think it would be valuable to the ongoing health of the project to have
> bots verifying the particular Thing that is the minimum supported compiler
> versions.  This doesn't mean I'm volunteering to provide that resource;
> neither does it mean I refuse to provide that resource. I am pointing out
> that it would be valuable generally, and as part of this longer-term goal
> to specify minimum compiler versions, it would be a Good Thing™ to be able
> to tell promptly when we've accidentally broken that, so that newcomers
> don't beat their head against a wall and go away disgusted with an
> open-source project that lies to them about supported configurations.
>
>
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Mehdi AMINI [mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 6:19 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* James Y Knight; Krzysztof Parzyszek; llvm-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] migrating past C++11
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:37 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> Please include MSVC in the table. While the picture on Windows is way less
> complicated than for *nix, it's still a platform and toolchain that matter
> to a number of us in the community.
>
>
>
> Separately, there was talk of needing to have bots that specifically use
> the oldest supported toolchains, otherwise we can't genuinely promise that
> they are really supported (don't want feature dependencies creeping in by
> accident).
>
>
>
> IMHO the difference between "supported" and having a bot validating the
> configuration is whether we accept patches to fix issues on this particular
> platform.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, I believe historically it has been up to the users that care
> about a platform to provide CI ressources for it. Do we have an alternative
> plan?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190123/12a715d8/attachment.html>