Boost logo

Boost :

From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-24 18:14:47

Jens Seidel wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently posted a patch which fixes some g++ 4.3 compiler errors and
> warnings but it was mostly ignored. I was forced that's why to create
> bug reports (which you call ticket, don't know why) for each library
> (which is time consuming especially without email interface) (#1332 --
> #1341).

Have you considered how much unpaid time some of the people here already
spend in maintaining Boost?

> I assumed trivial bugs such as
> Index: boost/gil/extension/dynamic_image/apply_operation_base.hpp
> ===================================================================
> --- boost/gil/extension/dynamic_image/apply_operation_base.hpp (Revision 40416)
> +++ boost/gil/extension/dynamic_image/apply_operation_base.hpp (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
> // Create specializations of apply_operation_fn for each N 0..100
> -};
> +}
> // unary application
> template <typename Types, typename Bits, typename Op>
> which lead to real compile errors (at least using -pedantic) will be
> fixed during minutes but I was wrong!

I don't know any *paid* support service that guarantees this kind of
response. Your problem may look trivial but anyone taking charge of it
would have to actually check that your patch is meaningful, apply it
locally, run the library tests on a few platforms, including the one
against which the ticket was filed.

Add the fact that we're talking about an unreleased compiler version,
which means that it is not one of the release critical platforms and
that it's probably not so commonly used among the Boost maintainers; I
would be surprised if your problem was taken care of as fast as you
would like.

> Of course I know that not everyone can react as fast but why do not commit
> other people such elementary stuff? Instead many simple patches are rotting
> in the bug database. Is this useful?
> Is it enforced somewhere that only the maintainer is allowed to commit patches
> for his library? I understand of course that not trivial stuff which needs to
> be analysed cannot be handled this way but there are so many trivial patches
> just ignored ...

No, the usual practice is for someone with commit rights to announce
that they have a patch for a specific library and then wait a few days.
If no objection comes the patch is usually applied, with the
understanding that the committer will revert it should it cause
unexpected problems.


Nicola.Musatti <at> gmail <dot> com

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at