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 16:47:42
On 1/23/2011 11:44 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>>> Well, rather, compiled and misbehaved. Not particularly in an
>>>> unpredictable fashion.
>>> Still, if this version of boost ended up in an ubuntu release, or some
>> such, then a lot of people might end up with miscompiled code. I was
>> looking forward to using utree, and now I am going to have to add an
>> explicit version test, to make sure I don't pick up this broken version.
>>> Unfortunately, people tend to just try compiling code they get with
>> whatever is on their system first, and don't check headers.
>>> If the particular headers are just never supposed to be included, they
>> could just be 'poisoned' with a #error, or as you say deleted. I realise
>> this might hold release up, but would avoid known-broken code being
>> I would be ok with poisoning the broken header with #error. That's in
>> addition to removing any mention of the broken feature from the docs and
>> release notes. But please do it soon. I think the beta is to be rolled
> poisoning the utree headers touches exactly the same set of files as pulling
> them. The overall design makes utree completely nonintrusive to other parts
> of Spirit, the headers are not included anywhere.
> The same is true for the tests: the Jamfiles have to be touched in any case.
> May I ask for permission to remove the files instead of poisoning them? The
> risk is the same, but the result much more desirable...
I second Hartmut's plea.
-- 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