From: Sylvain Pion (pion_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-01 18:35:45
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
> >IMO the sandbox state should not have to be constrained by the state of the
> >files section archive. Isn't unrestricted access and experimentation without
> >affecting the formal boost processes the whole point of the sandbox?
> Yes, I think so too. So the answer to the Interval folks is that they can
> continue to use the sandbox main trunk, and, yes, a tag might be helpful.
Thanks for clarifying.
The ZIP file is frozen and won't change during the review.
The boost-sandbox has been tagged corresponding to the exact same version
submitted for review.
We don't plan any "review disturbing change" anyway during the review period.
FYI, I have commited 3 small things on HEAD :
- an obvious fix to test/io.cpp.
It didn't use to compile in the version sent for review :(
It now works with g++ 3.1.1 and SunPRO at least.
- I commented a SunPRO specific option in examples/Makefile.
(if you use bjam you don't use the Makefile anyway)
- a new item in todo.htm.
(this file is not even linked from the main doc files, it's the internal
TODO list, which hopefully will be filled with reviewers' comments later :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk