From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-23 12:17:32
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > Hm. What might happen is this:
> > * I make a change to mem_fn.hpp.
> Without testing it? hmm.. ;)
Can't test on HP aCC, SunCC and so on.
> > * You make a change to mem_fn.hpp.
> I always thought one need to compile/run the tests _both_ before and after
> she makes any changes :).
> > * mem_fn_test.cpp fails.
> > * You get blamed for the failure even though it might be my fault.
> > So it's best to coordinate updates. ;-)
> I have no problems with that. It's just that the policy wasn't clear to
> and IMO, still, making a trivial fix to a "foreign" library yourself might
> make sense (personally, I would only appreciate if someone took care of
> obvious issue in my code for me :).
Yes, I was talking in general. Something as trivial as changing
first_argument_type to argument_type obviously is in a different category.
> So, what are your comments on the
> wording in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/20428? Do you think
> we should remove p. 2a?
p. 2a is OK, but I'd add
0) (Attempt to) contact the author/maintainer.
This should always be the first step.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk