From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-17 12:44:10
Peter Dimov wrote:
> One of the reasons for switching to HEAD is that anybody who is concerned
> about the fate of the library can see what is being done. I realize that one
> could track a branch if one really wanted to, but this is just not what
> happens in practice.
A second that.
> If the windows version conforms to the specification and passes its tests,
> there's nothing to be concerned about;
What I wanted to point out is that I am not sure if William also "is
there", ready for a switch to HEAD. E.g. I have been told by him that
he has implemented a different mutex algorithm than Terekhovs. I am not
sure if this algorithm is already at the same level of reliability.
> ... But it needs to be on HEAD and it
> needs to be regression tested. We already "lost" much of Bill's work because
> it was done on a branch. Branches are evil. Incremental refactorings that
> cause no unintended regressions are good. :-)
I also think that branches are evil, but this one was a very special
case. Originally we thought, that we would need to rewrite the code,
which I think is very different from an incremental change. (If it was
we never could have hoped to escape from Bills license.)
Fortunately this no longer is the case, and we can go back to
For my part I will adjust my priorities so as to arrive at HEAD as soon
as possible, while trying to preserve Bills original code as close as
possible, to avoid unintended regressions.
I do not know if William will revert his changes to Bills code base
again, since he already changed a lot more. I also do not know if he
already tried to run the regressions on his changes.
We definitely will need to wait for Williams statement.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk