cpp-netlib 0.9.4 Now Available!

[Dean Michael Berris]

Hot off the presses, you can get it here:
https://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib/downloads

This contains:
- lots of fixes to the URI implementation
- fixes to the async server implementation
- addressing nagging failures with SSL and Asio error reporting

This was tested on Mac OS X Lion using GCC 4.2.

Note: this is the last release for the 0.9 line and I'll basically be
merging the deanberris/cpp-netlib repo into the official
cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib repo and will be developing exclusively with the
1.0 release in mind.

I'll send more details on the plan later on. In the meantime, please
use 0.9.4 instead of 0.9.3.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to getting cpp-netlib in better
shape across the board.

Now we can start on the C++11 features and making cpp-netlib more awesome!

Cheers

--
Dean Michael Berris
Technical Solutions Engineer
Google

[Glyn Matthews]

Thanks Dean!

On 20 April 2012 19:54, Dean Michael Berris <dbe...@google.com> wrote:

Hot off the presses, you can get it here:
https://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib/downloads

This contains:
- lots of fixes to the URI implementation
- fixes to the async server implementation
- addressing nagging failures with SSL and Asio error reporting

This was tested on Mac OS X Lion using GCC 4.2.

It all works on my side too (Ubuntu 11.10, GCC 4.6).

I don't have a lot of time this weekend, could you also update the documentation?  Just what's change (whats_new.rst) and make sure that the version number is updated in index.rst.

 

Note: this is the last release for the 0.9 line and I'll basically be
merging the deanberris/cpp-netlib repo into the official
cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib repo and will be developing exclusively with the
1.0 release in mind.

I'll send more details on the plan later on. In the meantime, please
use 0.9.4 instead of 0.9.3.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to getting cpp-netlib in better
shape across the board.

Now we can start on the C++11 features and making cpp-netlib more awesome!

Looking forward to it!

Thanks Dean,

Glyn

[Dean Michael Berris]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Glyn Matthews <glyn.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dean!
>
> On 20 April 2012 19:54, Dean Michael Berris <dbe...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hot off the presses, you can get it here:
>> https://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib/downloads
>>
>> This contains:
>> - lots of fixes to the URI implementation
>> - fixes to the async server implementation
>> - addressing nagging failures with SSL and Asio error reporting
>>
>> This was tested on Mac OS X Lion using GCC 4.2.
>
>
> It all works on my side too (Ubuntu 11.10, GCC 4.6).
>

Cool news! I was kinda crossing my fingers for that one.

> I don't have a lot of time this weekend, could you also update the
> documentation?  Just what's change (whats_new.rst) and make sure that the
> version number is updated in index.rst.
>

I can change the RST but I won't be able to update the live docs just
yet. I'll leave that one for you if that's alright?

>>
>>
>> Note: this is the last release for the 0.9 line and I'll basically be
>> merging the deanberris/cpp-netlib repo into the official
>> cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib repo and will be developing exclusively with the
>> 1.0 release in mind.
>>
>> I'll send more details on the plan later on. In the meantime, please
>> use 0.9.4 instead of 0.9.3.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who's contributed to getting cpp-netlib in better
>> shape across the board.
>>
>> Now we can start on the C++11 features and making cpp-netlib more awesome!
>>
>
> Looking forward to it!
>

+1

> Thanks Dean,

My pleasure. :)

Cheers

--
Dean Michael Berris
www.deanberris.com

[Glyn Matthews]

Dean,

On 21 April 2012 08:32, Dean Michael Berris <mikhai...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Glyn Matthews <glyn.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dean!
>
> On 20 April 2012 19:54, Dean Michael Berris <dbe...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hot off the presses, you can get it here:
>> https://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib/downloads
>>
>> This contains:
>> - lots of fixes to the URI implementation
>> - fixes to the async server implementation
>> - addressing nagging failures with SSL and Asio error reporting
>>
>> This was tested on Mac OS X Lion using GCC 4.2.
>
>
> It all works on my side too (Ubuntu 11.10, GCC 4.6).
>

Cool news! I was kinda crossing my fingers for that one.

> I don't have a lot of time this weekend, could you also update the
> documentation?  Just what's change (whats_new.rst) and make sure that the
> version number is updated in index.rst.
>

I can change the RST but I won't be able to update the live docs just
yet. I'll leave that one for you if that's alright?

It needed a bit more than that.  The updated docs are now live at http://cpp-netlib.github.com/.

G

[Mark]

>
> It all works on my side too (Ubuntu 11.10, GCC 4.6).

How do you guys define works?

For test purposes I compile and run the contents within the test
folder (albeit I dont think I can claim 100% success on Win7 yet) so
I'm assuming that's what you and Dean did? I have dual boot setup
( MSVC 2010 on Win 7 Redhat 5.6, GCC 4.7) on a machine with ccp-netib
so I'd like to mirror your approach on Win7 and Redhat.

An aside:
When I access the (recommend for forks and pull requests) upstream
respository at http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib I get 404
errors. What upstream repository are you using?

Thanks

Mark

[Glyn Matthews]

Hi Mark,

On 22 April 2012 04:31, Mark <ma74...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It all works on my side too (Ubuntu 11.10, GCC 4.6).

How do you guys define works?

All tests pass (although we can argue about the comprehensiveness and quality of the tests - we're working on that).  We also use a CI server which checks the 0.9-devel branch - http://173.255.250.89:8080/ (Matt, could you set it put use the master branch on the cpp-netlib repo)?

 

For test purposes I compile and run the contents within the test
folder (albeit I dont think I can claim 100% success on Win7 yet)  so
I'm assuming that's what you and Dean did?   I have dual boot setup
( MSVC 2010 on Win 7 Redhat 5.6, GCC 4.7)  on a machine with ccp-netib
so I'd like to mirror your approach on Win7 and Redhat.

Can you say in more details what failures your getting?  I haven't been able to test everything on MSVC.

 

An aside:
When I access the (recommend for forks and pull requests) upstream
respository at http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib I get 404
errors.  What upstream repository are you using?

That repo has been deleted, you should use git://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib as the upstream repo.

Glyn

[Matt Trentini]

Hi Glyn,

> All tests pass (although we can argue about the comprehensiveness and
> quality of the tests - we're working on that).  We also use a CI server
> which checks the 0.9-devel branch - http://173.255.250.89:8080/ (Matt, could
> you set it put use the master branch on the cpp-netlib repo)?

OK, I've got the master branch building successfully now. I take it
this is effectively mainline development?

Are we using the 0.10-devel branch any longer?

Thanks,
Matt

[Dean Michael Berris]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Matt Trentini <matt.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Glyn,
>
>> All tests pass (although we can argue about the comprehensiveness and
>> quality of the tests - we're working on that).  We also use a CI server
>> which checks the 0.9-devel branch - http://173.255.250.89:8080/ (Matt, could
>> you set it put use the master branch on the cpp-netlib repo)?
>
> OK, I've got the master branch building successfully now.  I take it
> this is effectively mainline development?
>

Yes. Soon enough we're going to go all C++11 in cpp-netlib and we may
have to tweak the server config a little.

BTW, does Jenkins send build failures via email?

> Are we using the 0.10-devel branch any longer?
>

I would think the best approach for us is to continue developing on
master, then when we're ready to do a release we branch for that
release and stabilize that branch. This way master can keep moving
forward and the release stabilization work can happen on the release
branch.

For the meantime, the answer to that question is "no, we're not using
the 0.10-devel branch any longer".

Later on, we make a determination on whether it's going to be a 0.10
release or a 1.0 release. Right now I'm leaning towards a 1.0 release.