Re: [boost] [1.34.0] Boost.Build

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-10 14:58:23

Thomas Witt wrote:

> FWIW the decision to use v2 was made a long time ago.

The decision was made AFTER the branch for release.
When this branch was made it was explicitly stated that
only bug fixes should be commited to the release branch.

This admonition was ignored when the decision to commit
to v2 was made, which was not a bug fix but a feature
enhancement. I'm sure this opened the door to more
subtle feature enancements whch has resulted in a release
branch lifetime of 10 months rather than say one month.

Honestly, it hasn't hurt me personally.  I've refrained from
commiting anything other than bug fixes to the release
branch.  I doubt I've made more than 10 alterations
in the relase branch since it was announced.  It is a pity
though that when 1.34 comes out, it will be a year away
before the features/fixes now in the head appear in the
next release.

>
> Thomas
>
> PS: What's the status with respect to outstanding serialization
> regressions. Is there anything I can do to help get these fixed?

I've concluded that all ounstanding serializaton regressions are
not addressable with changes from within the serialization library.
So anything not passing now shuold be marked as "expected failure"

These last failures are one of the following:

the Jamfiles depend on the toolset name to avoid running
tests which will fail on systems without support for wide
character i/o.

CW 8.3 passes/fails and switches back and forth without
any changes on my part.

hp acc - has recently started to pass when a user sent
me a patch to the test header.  The current failures suggest
something amiss with the testing environment.

a couple of demos - fast_archive, portable archive don't pass
when auto-linking is used. They conflict with auto-link in a
fundamental way so can't really be fixed.  I'll add

A few borland 5.82 tests fail because they depend
upon features in other libraries (mpl, variant)  that fail with ths 
compiler.

I guess these last should be noted in expected failures - I was
hoping to see the failures disappear as thier root causes were
addressed.

Robert Ramey