Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [V1.46][Spirit] request for late minute changes to release branch
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-23 06:52:48

On 23 Jan 2011, at 10:54, Joel de Guzman wrote:

> 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
>> usable.
> 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.

What would happen, do you suspect, if I took code which worked with the up-coming version, and tried to compile it with 1.46? Would the problems be it didn't compile (that's fine with me), or it compiled but horribly misbehaved in unpredictable ways?


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