Subject: Re: [boost] [V1.46][Spirit] request for late minute changes to release branch
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-23 05:54:22
On 1/23/2011 5:21 PM, Chris Jefferson wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 06:28, Eric Niebler<eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 1/23/2011 10:14 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>> Hey release managers,
>>> With the upcoming Boost release, we were planning to release a new feature
>>> in Spirit (a dynamic data structure called utree) and everything seemed to
>>> be fine. Unfortunately, we now discovered a flaw in the design of the new
>>> code, which shows up under certain circumstances. The fix for that problem
>>> changes the semantics of the utree/Spirit integration considerably.
>>> Releasing utree now without being fixed means breaking its semantics with
>>> the next release. That is something we would like to avoid.
>>> We have two options:
>>> a) fix it now, possibly delaying the release for a couple of days (until the
>>> tests have cycled), or
>>> b) pull utree from the release branch, which mainly means removing files and
>>> adapting the test Jamfiles
>>> Neither a) nor b) would have any consequences for other Boost code and both
>>> are purely local to Spirit.
>>> What would you suggest?
>> It's a new feature that nobody is using yet? How about ...
>> c) Leave it undocumented. Fix it in the next release.
> I would very much prefer removing it. If I write code which uses utree
> and send it to someone else, I wouldn't want it to compile if their
> copy of boost has an undocumented and non-functional copy of utree in
> it. Perhaps as least remove the "major" base headers, so it is not
That's a very good point, but I think Eric's intent is to be ultra
cautious and not touch any code at all this late in the release cycle.
I can understand that. I'm ok with b or c.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk