Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request

Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
From: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-19 04:08:30

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:50:14 +0000
> From: dnljms_at_[hidden]
> To: boost-maint_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
>
> On 19 February 2014 06:46, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we (Boost) are committed to merging Stephen's changes to master.
>
> We're not really, he made them after being asked not to. It's up to
> individual libraries' maintainers whether they want to use them. IMO
> what we should do with modules where no one is dealing with changes on
> develop (all of them, not just Stephen Kelly's) is revert them in
> develop and create feature branches so that we can get master and
> develop in sync, but keep a record of the outstanding changes.

I'd rather take a less heavy handed approach and determine if the changes in develop are easily merged to master and avoid having the changes potentially get lost.

> Although In this case, I had a look at the changes while I was merging
> the warning fixes and they seemed fine (interestingly, there's a
> comment about gcc 3.4 that they remove which doesn't seem to match
> what the code does). I don't think anyone is opposed to removing
> support for these versions of GCC and Visual C++.

I'll try to determine if the changes can be merged standalone (without merging other modules) and submit a pull request against master if they are.