From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-04 19:13:13
I convinced myself that this needs to be fixed before the release. While
I am sympathetic to Vladimirs argument this seems serious enough to me
to call it a showstopper.
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I' glad you found this regression now, _before_ the release.
> FWIW I agree that that 1.34 should ship with an non-breaking implementation
> of none.
> As you know the intention was to fix a long standing problem with
> precompiled headers, but by no means that fix can existing code.
> I will contact the Release Manager (Thomas) asking for permission to revert
> the fix that caused the regresion.
> I will patch it by physically reverting the problematic fix, from CVS
> history, rather than patching the code one more time, to make sure there are
> no further mistakes.
Please go ahead. It's your call whether to simply revert or accept
Richard's patch. The way I look at it is that the patch has higher risk
but a nice testcase, that makes it even to me.
-- Thomas Witt witt_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk