[squid-dev] FYI: the C++11 roadmap

[Eliezer Croitoru]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I will try to respond here and not separately.

The main issue is like a recursive function that runs and has a
specific end.

- From my expirence

For CentOS(6.5):
We start and run the same thing again the next time.
So the first exit case I would suggest is to let 3.5 be less
compatible with C++11 due to the complexity of CentOS admins.
If there will be a change in CentOS even throw EPEL to the GCC
compiler we can then rethink out path again.
Also there are couple other repos for CentOS but they convert the OS
to something outside of CentOS BASE support scope.

For Ubuntu(14.01):
Their version is: gcc-4.8
Their LTS version shows stability but has some bugs here and there.
I have built a deb file for ubuntu and can rebuild it again but I will
need to practice before I would say I have mastered it enough to build
it for each release.

So my opinion is to give stability more weight and to make sure that
3.4.9 and forward will prove that we care about it.
Once we can compare Ubuntu and CentOS and say that we want to support
CentOS by building RPMs, we can then verify with the CentOS community
about the options for newer version of GCC and make it even possible
for them to upgrade the packages on a "near EOL" OS.

I think that admins should be able to do their update\upgrade job and
if they have a really big system they have some minions that can help
them with the process and in most cases would like the challenge!!

* where do we have a list of C++11 based items list?

Eliezer

On 05/05/2014 05:21 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> I have just announced the change in 3.4.5 regarding C++11 support
> and accompanied it with a notice that GCC verion 4.8 is likely to
> become the minimum version later this calendar year.
> 
> As it stands (discussed earlier):
> 
> * Squid-3.4 needs to build with any GCC 4.0+ version with C++03.
> 
> * Squid-3.6 will need to build with C++11.
> 
> * The Squid-3.5 situation is still in limbo and will depend on how
> long we go before it branches.
> 
> We have a growing list of items needing C++11 features for simpler 
> implementation. At this point I am going to throw a peg out and say
> Sept or Oct for starting to use C++11 specific code features.
> 
> That should still allow us enough time to complete and branch 3.5.
> But if feature completion takes too long, so be it.
> 
> Cheers Amos
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUYHaAAAoJENxnfXtQ8ZQUOMoIAIxZ0TIlE8ULIO1kbiWnK/aH
HWTX3vD0e5qowdbR9XsJsfKHDE+BDdoOyc9oEI7U+bwROUfYswL/eOkrWGv3U7pW
n6+BzkcKNcJVIGSDYD2EbHLgIHphG30QcNyjW4WW+vxftFFCSrypjVQG4yIsNmVi
NVi/bXG2LVI4++H73HT06I5W/oHx4Sr8j6usPoCdn+qdHlrXM9QNtI8DEI63DZJQ
u2+NEemv5/eBA4ymHXW5Ye03i4y998gaNHrM4POgoaDGIqea8LpyFek4u4/WF+ky
hGTUzBkCizBmc35b59DH6R/FtYDZjgQFVIsxoo+Sn+TEH2rDcSoBH71YVnRlUrM=
=cGcl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----