From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Cutler Subject: Re: Backporting from Infernalis and c++11 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: <55F7D2BB.2050403@suse.cz> References: <55F7C70B.4000308@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59570 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751477AbbIOILm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2015 04:11:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55F7C70B.4000308@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > 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