Re: [pcre-dev] Reply to much discussion

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:28:46AM +0000, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Wow, I go home for the night and next morning there's a tsunami of
> email. I'm not objecting - it's good to see it all happening. Rather
> than replying to several threads individually, I'm going to put
> everything I want to say into a single message. I hope that's OK.
>
> * My immediate manager is quite happy for the PCRE project to use
> sesame.csx.cam.ac.uk in the same way as the Exim project does. The
> higher management will be asked to rubber stamp this next Tuesday, but
> I think we can proceed on the assumption that there will be no
> objection.
>
> My choice would be to go for sesame over code.google (sorry Craig) on
> the basis that it's something that I'm familiar with, and we have at
> least one volunteer (thanks Nigel!) to do some of the set up.
>
> Anybody want to shout against that?

It's perfect!

> * There seems to be a definite feeling that SVN is an acceptable and
> good way to go, and Nigel has volunteered to set it up. So let's go
> for that, shall we? I agree that we should arrange anonymous read
> access if we can, with SSH accounts needed for developers.

Perfect!

> * I agree with Daniel (and disagree with Bob) that the PCRE project is
> not big enough to need heavyweight formal arrangements, either for
> "who may commit what" or for licensing. The Exim project is much
> bigger, and hasn't gone down either of those roads.

Perfect!

> * autogen.sh: Daniel has a good point about accessing options for the
> separate tools, and that people may expect to find autogen.sh. So
> let's keep it for now.

Perfect!

> * Bob asked about test failures: certainly the tests will fail if you
> set the ebcdic option on an ascii host. I have no way of testing that
> option. As for the others, I'm not sure. I promise to check them all
> out when I get control of the source back.

Perfect!

> * The progression: patch 6 (Bob) -> patch 7 (Daniel) -> 7.1-RC1 (me)
> seems the right way to go. It looks as though it's happening. I will
> experiment with both patch 6 and patch 7 later today and see if I come
> up with any issues. I get the feeling that Bob and Daniel have mostly
> done what they wanted by now - maybe it is now time for me to take it
> all back, apply it to my master sources, and then see if there's
> anything I don't like. Say when...

Perfect! I'll test patch 7 as well.

> * I don't think we should change the --enable-newline settings, for
> compatibility reasons. It may be tidier, but it seems gratuitous.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi