Re: [boost] [1.34.0] (was [optional] New RC_1_34_0 regression)

From: Matt Doyle (mdoyle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-04 13:46:05

Might I add a possible third alternative? 

Why not make the patches publicly available on boost's web site?
Something like Microsoft's hot-fixes. That way the release goes forward
and if a user if effected by this they can patch their own copy. Having
such a facility would also help in the future for addressing major
problems between release, if a user has a problem they could scan the
patches and say "oh here's a patch that fixes the problem I'm having"
apply it and move on.

Food for thought perhaps?

Matt 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Martin Bonner
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:57 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.34.0] (was [optional] New RC_1_34_0 
> regression)
> 
> ping Thomas
> 
> ----Original Message----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard 
> Smith Sent:
> 04 April 2007 16:48 To: Vladimir Prus
> Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] New RC_1_34_0 regression
> 
> > Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > 
> >> Previously, we decided on this list that on a certain date, all
> >> remaining failures will be marked as expected.
> > 
> > Freeze was scheduled to be at 11:00 UTC on Mar 2nd; the
> > regression was only introduced at 23:08 UTC on Mar 1st.  And
> > the file in question (<boost/none.hpp>) has been modified
> > twice since then to fix other regressions introduced
> > by that commit.
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against that commit having
> > gone in at the last minute -- other parts of the commit
> > fixed several important issues, but it seems unreasonable to
> > expect any problems with it to have been fixed in the twelve
> > hours between commit and freeze.  And indeed the file in
> > question has been edited in the last week to fix other
> > regressions.
> > 
> >> Now, you're pointing out that
> >> we have a regression, for which we don't even have a test.
> > 
> > Yes you do.  The patch I attached to my email this morning
> > added a test to the test suite.
> > 
> >> In light of that decision, we probably can add a test for that
> >> problem, and immediately mark all failures of said test as 
> expected.
> >> But that would not be very helpful. I don't think we should give
> >> this problem 
> >> any bonus points just because it's not discovered by the tests yet.
> > 
> > Indeed, and I'm not suggesting it should.  But if the test
> > suites were indiciating a failure that would silently change
> > legitimate user code across all platforms, I would hope that
> > too would be fixed rather than marked 'expected'.
> > 
> > Richard
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Martin Bonner
> Project Leader
> 
> PI SHURLOK LTD
> Telephone: [phone] / 203894 (direct)
> Fax: [phone]
> Email: martin.bonner_at_[hidden]
> www.pi-shurlok.com
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 

Scanned by McAfee GroupShield {X3BTB534}