[boost] Proposal: Post-Release Maintenance Team (WAS Re: [test] [gcc-4.3.2] check_is_close and check_is_small issues)

Subject: [boost] Proposal: Post-Release Maintenance Team (WAS Re: [test] [gcc-4.3.2] check_is_close and check_is_small issues)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-19 03:15:41

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Juergen Hunold
<juergen.hunold_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Dean !
>
> On Thursday 19 February 2009 02:34:05 Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
>> Thanks for these links! Did they apply cleanly to Boost 1.38.0 for
>> you? I tried both (in the given order above) and I got some rejections
>> when I applied them to a cleanly unpacked distribution.
>
> Well, actually not ;-((
> I think you can safely ignore the patch to utils/runtime/cla/parameter.hpp as
> this just fixes a regression which happened in between the changes.
> I'll dig further into this and ask the maintainer for permission to merge at
> least the warning fixes to the release branch.
>

Alright.

Now this time, would there be any objections if I (or other people)
tried managing a patch release for 1.38.0? Would anybody else be
interested in helping release a 1.38.1 with fixes hand-ported from
trunk to 1.38.0?

I've found some Jamfile fixes required to work around the (I'm
guessing, now defunct) 'message' function in Boost.Build v2 that's
bundled with Boost 1.38 that might be worth looking at.

I'm also interested in bringing in a newer version of Boost.Build from
the nightly builds into the 1.38.0 release to be packaged as 1.38.1;

HTH

-- 
Dean Michael Berris | Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.
blog.cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/mikhailberis |
linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | profiles.friendster.com/mikhailberis |
deanberris.com