From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-16 19:31:24
Beman Dawes wrote:
> > > While looking at some of the regression testing failures on the
> > > dashboard (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 the 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 the failures for the "compose" library,
> > > where there is a #include "compose.hpp" 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.
> I suppose we ought to write up the guidelines.
(Peter Dimov had some corrections to these, please see the follow-ups)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk