Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Release Managers] Merging Parameter to Release
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-31 10:50:16

Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> What are the nature of the recent changes? Bug fixes?
>>> A bug fix and associated doc change.
>>>> If so, I'm inclined to accept the bug fixes and reject the additional
>>>> tests to avoid the appearance of a regression. Beman?
>>> That's the possibility I was suggesting.
>> Hmmm - wouldn't that just be hiding a bug?
>> Are we doing anyone any favor by hiding a test known to fail?

We're not hiding anything. The test is failing on trunk. The idea was to
avoiding the false impression of a regression.

>> I think you should just leave the new tests in even though they
>> are failing. Perhaps an addition in the release notes to indicate
>> a pending issue would be in order.
>> I presume that the newer version is strictly better than the
>> previous one so there's no question that it should be released.


>> I would say,
>> a) Release the library with the failing test
>> b) Note the recently detected bug in the release notes
>> c) Address the bug separately.
>> Note that this wouldn't break precedent in anyway since
>> all libraries have test failures on at least some platforms.
> Agree.


Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing

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