Would anyone be opposed to having a "configuration.md" in /docs/ that explains ./configure usage and dependency -> configure option mappings?
At the moment there's so much random configure documentation shotgunned all over the place. I think it'd make sense to put it all in one place, and always point back to that from other docs.
fanquake: ./configure --help?
luke-jr: Is your suggestion is to replace every mention of configure options/related info in all the documentation with "go look at ./configure --help"? I don't think that's the answer, unless we want to add a lot more info to that configure output.
apparently I wasn't authenticated with freenode so no one was seeing my messages? this was really strange\
was already surprised why the meetingstart bot wasn't working
how long has wumpus been shouting into the void?
provoostenator has had similar issues before I think
about five minutes :)
we miss anything good?
omg... must have felt terrible
no, about the same jonasschnelli did :)
FYI,I saw "hi" or similar from the following people. If you're not listed, you might be muted. meshcollider jnewbery jonasschnelli provoostenator jeremyrubin ariard sipa dongcarl gleb achow101 (and, just now, wumpus).
meshcollider: indeed, that's always fun
so anyhow, feel free to keep chairing the meeting
So far no one has any topics
Looks like non of the high prio PR's are ready to merge,...
#proposedmeetingtopic upgrade to C++17
#topic upgrade to C++17 (dongcarl)
I looked at the history a little, and there was a PR for upgrading to C++14
I think no one was prepared for that one
What are the major new features?
I believe that 17 has a lot of functionality that would simplify our codebase
Is it ok to open an issue listing wanted features in 14+17 and then I/we can update current status of compilers and OSs? (and say if these features are even worth it)
elichai2: sure, but I think dongcarl is opening an issue about it
elichai2: I'll link you
ok dongcarl send the link and i'll comment there :)
I don't think it belonged in the meeting, but as said, I don't think #8994 needs the "needs conceptual review" tag, while #16524 #16526 and #16527 need it (specially the last 2, since they compete with each other)