From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-01 09:53:11
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Oct 31 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>> Marshall Clow wrote:
>>> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>> shows all the tickets that have been assigned to the 1.35.0 milestone.
>>>> Does this list have any meaning? In other words, are we actually
>>>> intending to address all of these problems for 1.35, and put off other
>>>> tickets for 1.35.1 or 1.36.0?
>>> Personally, I'd like to see all the submitted patches "dealt with" for 1.35.
>>> Either apply them or reject them. [ There are about 50 outstanding patches ]
>> Patches seem a particularly high priority to me, too.
>> I've reproduced the latest patch report from Marshall so we can all see
>> who the guilty parties are:-)
>> Developers, now is a great time to clear your outstanding patches!
> IMO, promising patches that are merely new features that haven't been
> in testing for some time should be assigned to the 1.36.0 milestone
> rather than "cleared" by either integrating them or rejecting them.
Yep. I was assuming patches were bug fixes, which may not be the case.
> Patches should only be a high priority if they fix bugs... and in that
> case they should come with a test that breaks until the bug is fixed.
It is very useful and a sign of good software engineering if a test case
accompanies a bug fix. But patch submitters don't always have enough
time or knowledge of a library's test setup to submit test cases. I'd
rather fixes be prioritized based on severity rather than whether or not
they come with a test case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk