RE: [certi-dev] C++ 1516 Binding

[Ijperen, Jeroen van]

> From: Eric Noulard
> > Glad to hear it! I will update today, after I settle my own changes.
> :)
> 
> Beware that there is a lot of changes thus for this kind of update
> it's usually a good idea to generate a patch containing your
> modifications
> (cvs diff -u should do the job). then update.
> 
> That way if a lot of unresolved merge takes place it may be easier to
> checkout a  new fresh tree then selectively apply the previous patch.
> 

Thanks for the advise, I'll make sure not to lose my modifications in the 
merge. :)

> > I fiddled around a bit with the CMake files, and it now generates
> projects for RTIA1516, libRTI1516 and (Lib/Test)FedTime1516, including
> some build defines.
> 
> OK that's good start.
> 
> >> If you did try to keep us informed of your progress
> >> and try to keep your working tree up to date.
> >> or keep two trees and monitor the changes others do in parallel.
> >>
> > Currently I just import your changes through CVS, but I
> > can post back my changes if you (all) would like that.
> 
> We usually review some patches before authorizing "direct" commit :-)
> 
> What I can propose you is the following,
> 
> 1) Register a Savannah account (if you do not already have one)
> 
> 2) Request your inclusion in the CERTI project
>      I let you in and assign you the task concerning 1516 I've just
> opened:
>      https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?10290
> 
> 3) When appropriate attach a patch proposal to the task.
> 
> Using this way of work everybody (including me) may follow your work
> and try the patches you will propose without potentially breaking thing
> in CVS.
> 
> In the beginning I'll merge your patches myself and commit and when
> we (CERTI admin and you) are confident that you can commit alone
> we will let you do it.
> 
> Would this way of working be OK for you?

Sounds like an excellent plan. I was already slightly worried of 
breaking your build - a review (before merge) sounds good.

I have an account on Savanah (vyperx) and placed a reply for the task.
I'll post the patch when I can - probably by the end of today.

> 
> > Current implementation doesn't do anything useful yet, but it's the
> groundwork. (Handles, Exceptions, empty Ambassador implementation,
> AmbassadorFactory.)
> 
> If you are OK with the previous way of working, just do it and attach
> a first patch containing
> those changes.

Will do.

Kind regards,

Jeroen v. IJperen
TASK24