On 10/10/2017 11:49 AM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
way straight to 4.5.0...
Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
bigger step in number might be ju
Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
way straight to 4.5.0...
Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
we drop some older
4.2.0 the idea is we could reference it to Douglas Adams answer 42.
Which is kinda funny.
However I would like to postpone the discussion towards 20ties since I have
.ore time then. Very unselfish of me I know. ;)
All the best
Peter
Am 10. Oktober 2017 01:00:36 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>I
Hi -
It is worth letting the idea “percolate” while 4.1.4 release proceeds to
completion.
I like Jm’s thought. Announcing plans while announcing a release and then
executing on it would be the the best AOO marketing possible. We proceed with
whoever helps methodically.
My 2cts.
Regards,
Dave
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>> way straight to 4.5.0...
>> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
way straight to 4.5.0...
Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
we drop some older supported platforms.
We should focus on 4.1.4
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
way straight to 4.5.0...
Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
we drop some older supported platforms.
Am 17.08.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does building
wit
> On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
>
> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does
> building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users usin
On 17.08.2017 12:51, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
>
> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does
> building with the 10.9
> SDK imply that users using Mac OS X <
On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean,
does building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9
won't be able to run the program?
A note: we'l
The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
> On Aug 16, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
>> required 10.9/Mavericks or greater.
>
> Required based on what
On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
required 10.9/Mavericks or greater.
Required based on what? On the current trunk code, on some architectural
limitations, on build environment? We are still receiving the occasional
mails of 10.6
This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. If not correct, could someone
let me know :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional command
Oh cool!
Am 15. August 2017 15:45:05 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead
>of 10.7, which helps a lot.
>
>> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>>
>> Boost has name collision with c++11.
>> Switch the standard of. Then you
I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead
of 10.7, which helps a lot.
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>
> Boost has name collision with c++11.
> Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.
>
> Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb
Boost has name collision with c++11.
Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.
Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
>this:
>
>error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>
>but the
Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
this:
error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
-arch x86_64
18 matches
Mail list logo
