On 2018-12-02 11:53 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
>>>> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
>>>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899.
>>>
>>> This isn't "the spec", it's a proposed (but incorrect) resolution to a
>>> defect in the standard. What it proposes may not fix the defect, but I
>>> think it's an improvement to the std::tuple API anyway, and so I want
>>> libstdc++ to implement it. "The spec" is the C++ standard, but it
>>> explicitly allows implementations to add stronger
>>> exception-specifications where a function is known not to throw.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch. Something this small could be accepted without a
>>> copyright assignment, but as it seems like you're interested in
>>> contributing more (which is great!) you should be aware of the legal
>>> prerequisites for larger contributions (which also applies to several
>>> small contributions, even if each one is trivial). See
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for details, and let me know if
>>> you have any questions about that.
>>>
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> My only question remains is for copyright is it per patch or just one time.
>>
>> My other question is related to the noexcept parts and that either I or
>> you should move and CC the other involed list i.e. the llibstdc++ list.
>
> You can submit one copyright assignment per patch ... if you're a masochist.
>
> The recommended approach is a single "Futures" copyright assignment
> for all current and future patches.
>
> Thanks, David
>
It mentions on the page to just ask about copyright forms, so I am asking here
for them before I just send them to the assign email address given.
Nick
