Re: C++11

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:08:01AM +0200, Thomas Keller wrote:
> 
> Hi Markus!
> 
> Markus Wanner schrieb:
> > Obviously, the former offers little benefit: We could possibly add minor
> > #ifdef'd optimizations. For example using perfect forwarding and move
> > constructors to avoid some copying if C++11 is used.
> > 
> > The latter seems much more interesting, but is a much heftier change as
> > well. Before I proceed with that branch, I'd like to get some feedback
> > and opinions.
> 
> Since I'm not developing with C++ anymore on a daily basis, would you
> mind to give guys like me some examples / judgement why monotone should
> switch to C++11? I could think of having less code in monotone because
> more is taken care of already in the stdlib, but some examples would be
> nice.

monotone should definitely be compilable on C++11.  But it's going to be
a while before all platforms have C++11 compiler.  I'm thinking of 
things like long-term-support Ubuntu and Debian Squeeze, older Mac's 
which do not receive new OS/X's any more, Windows XP machines, and so 
forth.  There are probably even older platforms still in active use 
somewhere.  It's not unusual at all for servers to be running stable 
long-term-support versions of software and foregoing the latest and 
greatest for stability.

I have noo idea how many of these old systems use monotone.

I maintain that monotone should remain compilable on older C++ 
compilers.  At very least, the pre-C++11 version of monotone should be 
its own legacy branch and should continue to receive bugfixes for a 
long time, and should remain net-sync-compatible with the current one.

Of course, the operational questions here are *when* the transition 
should occur, and how long dual-operation should be supported when it 
does.

-- hendrik