From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-14 03:18:29
Robert Ramey writes:
>>With the new MPL in the main trunk and the updated MPL documentation coming
>>later this week, we've finally come to the point when it's feasible to talk
>>about the branch-for-release date.
>>Given that there is still some work on regressions to be done, I'd like to
>>aim for the end of the week, let's say Friday, September 17th. Does that
>>sound OK to everybody?
> Sounds too optimistic to me.
Well, let's try and see how it goes.
>>I'm assuming that at this point all library authors/maintainers are
>>finished with the tasks they wanted to perform before the release, minor
>>regression fixes aside. If not, please scream loudly!
> That's a reasonable assumption. But ...
>>One thing that we really have to take care of before branching is long
>>filenames. Could maintainers of the following libraries please fix the
>>corresponding problems listed in detail in
>> archive (serialization)
> The problem here is that some boost libraries depend on other boost
> libraries. E.g. serialization depends on spirit, lots of stuff depend on
> iterator, everything depends on test. So changing names will have lots of
> secondary effects.
I don't see how. There only two _header files_ that need to be
renamed, and they are both in the serialization library:
boost/archive/polymorphic_binary_wiarchive.hpp: filename > 31 chars
boost/archive/polymorphic_binary_woarchive.hpp: filename > 31 chars
> I'm still struggling with the fact that spirit 1.61
> depends upon apply_if.hpp which no longer exists. In effect this makes the
> serialization library unavailable to vc 6.0, borland and others. That's just
> one case. BTW.
What are others?
> These changes will break user code that depends on previous
> boost versions. So that's another question.
MPL changes, yes. That was a conscious decision, and I don't see how
it's relevant to the question of branch-for-release date.
> Another issue is that the toolsets have some pending anomalies. Aside from
> the fact that the toolset documentation is now out of sync with the actual
> toolsets available and in use,
That's an issue that needs to be taken care of. Could you name the
toolsets you are aware of being out-of-sync with the docs?
> I'm having problems with all those which use
> stlport which used to work. I'm still tracking this down.
> This is just the stuff I know about. I would say 17 Sep is hopelessly
May be a little bit. All other issues aside, how much do you need to
get the serialization library only into the state that you would
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk