Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --]

Hi Ceph,

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 ?

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

[Nathan Cutler]

> With Infernalis Ceph move to c++11 (and CMake), we will see more conflicts when backporting bug fixes to Hammer. 

Good point, Loic!

> Any ideas you may have to better deal with this would be most welcome.

A couple thoughts pop into mind.

When I joined the project, I was told that doing backports is a good way
to get into the codebase, and after some months I can confirm that this
is true.

Loic has literally bent over backwards to help me along the way, and
thanks to that I have made some progress. Still, the factor determining
whether a backport is trivial or non-trivial is often my own
"cluenessness".

I would suggest to developers that they keep backporting in the back of
their mind as they design and implement bugfixes. Will the backport be
doable even by a relatively inexperienced backporter? Is there a way to
make it easier on the backporter?

I would suggest that it is in the developers' best interest to make a
little extra effort in this direction, as it will reduce the
probability of the backporter asking them for help later ;-)

Regards

-- 
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037

Re: Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

[John Spray]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> 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.

John

Re: Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1346 bytes --]

Hi John,

On 15/09/2015 12:02, John Spray wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> 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 #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]