From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-16 15:09:16
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: [boost] Policy/ethics question: correcting 'trivial' errors in
> While looking at some of the regression testing failures on the
> (see my earlier post), I've noticed that many errors are trivial to fix.
> Should we fix the errors in CVS immediately or construct a patch, notify
> author, and wait for approval? What if the author does not respond in a
> timely manner? Some of these problems really are trivial, e.g., look at
> failures for the "compose" library, where there is a #include
> that should be #include <boost/compose.hpp>.
> Any guidelines on this?
The usual practice is that editorial errors like the above can be fixed
without consulting anyone, but that you should err on the side of asking the
author. One thing you can do is to check in a branch and ask the author to
approve it before you merge.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk