Re: [boost] [1.34.1] Release Candidate 3

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-18 13:18:52

Rene Rivera wrote:

> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> 
>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> Thomas Witt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Those issues are not so minor.
>>>>> At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are
>>>>> not.
>>>> Probably. Except that issue
>>>> http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted
>>>> to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time,
>>>> the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other
>>>> folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll
>>>> shut up now.
>>> Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix
>>> for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
>> 
>> Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I
> 
> It's related to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy>, and
> <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat>.

I see. Sorry you got this impression -- I merely wanted
to say that it 1.34.1 is claimed to fix cygwin issues,
then cygwin better work.

>> understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time
>> ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3
>> appear to lack this fix.
> 
> Indeed... I though I did everything I was supposed to do procedure wise.
>   That is I did everything I did for the other bugs. Is there something
> I should have done differently? Was there some miscommunication?

This is what I'm wondering about. In fact, 
looking at http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/2, I see quite
a number of issues reported for 1.34.0. Ideally, our issue workflow should
be arranged so that all issues reported for 1.N.0 are evaluated when
planning 1.N.1.

- Volodya