Re: "gaurd" typo

[David Sugar]

Since the commoncpp layer is kept separate specifically for maintaining
compatibility, even a 6.0 release of ucommon core should not effect
ccrtp at all.  At some point I think we should migrate ccrtp (and
libcppzrtp) to ucommon, but there is no near-term plan for this yet.

I do recall sflphone and I would love to see it adopt srtp and zrtp.

On 04/05/2012 12:11 PM, Tristan Matthews wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Sugar" <address@hidden>
>> To: address@hidden
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:10:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: "gaurd" typo
>>
>> I actually almost hate these kind of errors, because they nonetheless
>> do
>> touch upon linkage abi.   Actually it is probably a good time to
>> consider what will become 6.0, which offers a good opportunity to
>> also
>> consider depreciating/changing/break other abi issues.
> 
> Definitely. What kind of timeframe are you thinking of? 
> For context, I'm one of the developers of SFLphone, and we are in the process 
> of migrating to ccrtp-2.0.2 as Debian will be making the switch soon.
> 
>> I have
>> thought
>> about re-organizing the string class a bit to make it simpler to use
>> in
>> expressions, for example.
>>
>> On 04/04/2012 01:59 PM, Tristan Matthews wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I noticed in corelib/thread.cpp and inc/ucommon/thread.h that
>>> Mutex::gaurd is probably meant to be spelled Mutex::guard.
>>> I've attached a trivial patch which fixes this typo.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tristan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>>