Votes noting platform/compilers Re: [VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:25:20AM -0700, Amit Jindal wrote:
> +1

Just as a note, when voting on a release, it is an excellent idea to
indicate what platform/compiler/etc combinations you tested it on.

This would allow others to know what platforms haven't been tested yet and
can focus their efforts on those platforms.  Or, if someone tries it on
that platform and it doesn't work, we would know who 'tested' it on which
platforms.

As an example, you can look at how dev@httpd conducted the vote for 2.2.0:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200511.mbox/%3c438C0984.8060008@force-elite.com%3e

Thanks.  -- justin

Re: Votes noting platform/compilers Re: [VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3

[Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:25:20AM -0700, Amit Jindal wrote:
> 
>>+1
> 
> 
> Just as a note, when voting on a release, it is an excellent idea to
> indicate what platform/compiler/etc combinations you tested it on.
> 
> This would allow others to know what platforms haven't been tested yet and
> can focus their efforts on those platforms.  Or, if someone tries it on
> that platform and it doesn't work, we would know who 'tested' it on which
> platforms.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that this information would be
valuable. I should have mentioned in my initial post that the sources
in the tarball correspond to the Rogue Wave C++ Standard Library 4.1.3
(minus the test suite) which is about to be released and which has been
fully certified on several other platforms besides the ones I tested
the tarball on. Here's the complete list:
   http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx/platforms-4.1.3.text

I'll make it a policy to publish the full list in the future. And as
soon as we're done with porting the test suite we will also publish
the test results for each of the platforms.

Martin