Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library beginning

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 :)

-- 
Sylvain