Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

lutok: Switch from std::auto_ptr<> to std::unique_ptr<>
ClosedPublic

Authored by jhb on Fri, Apr 11, 6:00 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 20, 4:30 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Apr 18, 10:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 17, 10:43 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 17, 2:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 17, 2:10 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 17, 12:04 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Apr 16, 2:25 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 13, 4:17 AM
Subscribers

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

jhb requested review of this revision.Fri, Apr 11, 6:00 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Fri, Apr 11, 7:11 PM

I remember ngie@ agreed in some past cases to go directly to the src while the expected vendor path could go in parallel at its own pace. The vendor branch seems to be non-updated since its import back in 2020, so the vendor path may face obstacles and could take time. I mention this just in case if there is a need to hit src sooner, so that an exception agreement could be considered.

I remember ngie@ agreed in some past cases to go directly to the src while the expected vendor path could go in parallel at its own pace. The vendor branch seems to be non-updated since its import back in 2020, so the vendor path may face obstacles and could take time. I mention this just in case if there is a need to hit src sooner, so that an exception agreement could be considered.

OK, no objection to bringing it into src directly as long as it also makes it into upstream. Now that upstream is in the FreeBSD GitHub org there shouldn't be a large barrier to getting the change merged there.

Upstream already has this change: https://github.com/freebsd/lutok/commit/bd5904144c9778a07685f3e4efa6ef011a5480ec

I could rework the log commit to claim this is obtained from that instead perhaps? I wasn't really planning on dealing with doing an import.

I could rework the log commit to claim this is obtained from that instead perhaps? I wasn't really planning on dealing with doing an import.

That's fine with me, in that case IMO just note that the same change exists upstream. Someone™ will/should eventually do a vendor update.