Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [release] files from previous releases
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-15 00:27:16

On 1/15/2010 1:37 PM, Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> How disruptive will it be and what's actually broken?
> Currently, the new interface is documented and implemented but can't
> do what an older version could for stuff that has been factored out
> is missing, now.
> The old interface is still there (those files I wanted to remove, at
> frist) but not what's documented and under test.
> So what can we do? Ordered by descending personal preference:
> A)
> * add dependencies (we can sustain any official advertisement until
> the next release, except for they're mentioned in Fusion docs)

I can't parse this sentence. But it sounds like you're suggesting adding
code to the release. I would be opposed to that.

> * remove outdated files (optional)
> * regenerate docs & check them, test locally, commit
> B)
> * ignore there is a problem, for now
> * regenerate docs (as reportedly broken) & check them, commit
> C)
> * keep headers as-is
> * partially roll back docs (non-trivial for QB macros/linkage)
> * get the old code back under test, maybe adjust after a test cycle
> * change some examples back to use the old code
> * regenerate docs & check them, test locally, commit

What is being tested on the release branch? Are the tests failing there?
If not, we just need to change the docs to reflect the actual code on
the release branch. And that's it, IMO. I guess that's your option (B)

Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing

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