From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-02 05:59:04
> On Friday 01 November 2002 12:47, John Maddock wrote:
> > No, I did, I'll get it fixed (eventually), but is the release branch
> > in use?
> In the run-up towards a release I use the release branch, making
> updates. To get the final version I usally only update the release branch.
> that's how I discovered the problem.
> In general I think that the release branch should be usable. I.e.
> the released version with possible minor tweaks if we choose to use the
> release branch to provide patched releases (e.g. 1.29.1).
> > Actually if your using the release branch can you make the change of all
> > occurrences of is_POD.hpp to is_pod.hpp?
> I can make the neccessary changes. I just didn't want to fiddle with the
> branch while I was not 100% sure what's going on.
This was one of those unintended consequences - and a lesson for the future.
Basically cvs won't allow two files in the repository that differ only in
the case of their name, so I had to get the sourceforge tech guys to make
the change by editing the repository. What none of us realised when we
discussed the name change, was that this means that the files name has
changed *for all versions of that file across all cvs branches*. And that's
what has retrospectively broken the release branch. Thankfully it's a new
file so only one release branch is affected, even so I see no alternative
but to retrospectively patch that branch, as you say someone should be able
to come along in the future and check out that branch and expect it to work,
which is my way of telling you to go ahead and add the necessary patches
(there should only be type_traits.hpp that needs patching plus one or two of
the boost/type_traits/*.hpp headers).
Thanks for spotting this one!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk