Re: [boost] [V1.46][Spirit] request for late minute changes to release branch

Subject: Re: [boost] [V1.46][Spirit] request for late minute changes to release branch
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-25 06:05:03

On 1/25/2011 5:35 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> On 1/25/2011 2:10 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>
>>>>> May I ask for permission to remove the files instead of poisoning them? The
>>>>> risk is the same, but the result much more desirable...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no. We have a way to avoid changing build files just before
>>>> release. Let's take it.
>>>
>>> That does not seem reasonable to me. IIUC, the changes to build files involve
>>> remove N tests, which is a low-risk change that can be fully validated locally.
>>> Leaving broken code in seems much worse.
>>
>> The question to answer is: was the original issue a showstopper or not?
>> I had decided it was not because it breaks no code in the field. That
>> seems reasonable to me. 
> 
> You seem to take a block-diagram-driven approach. "Is this a showstopper -- yes, no?".
> The real decision here is either shipping a broken code, or doing a relatively safe
> code change to remove all traces thereof.

My understanding is that the release progresses in stages. We had passed
the "doing relatively safe things" stage and passed into "critical bug
fixes only" stage.

You could say that I take too hard a line. Maybe. I think that the
process runs more smoothly when the rules are well-defined, we all
understand them and stick to them.

Hartmut's change was relatively safe -- granted. But I don't want to
start making exceptions. I'm busy. The last thing I want is a lengthy
discussion about whether the fixes are "safe enough". So yeah, at this
point in the release, "is it a showstopper, yes or no?" That makes my
job easier.

>> And if you disagreed, the time to speak up was days ago.
> 
> There's some truth to that; except -- aren't the most recent messages in this
> thread dated Jan 23 and Jan 24 -- which is yesterday and the other day?

Yes, 2 days ago. As the subject line says, this is a "last minute"
change request. We're down to the wire. Two days can be a long time.

> In fact, what is the status here? I though that utree code was removed, and Jamfiles
> were modified to not run relevant tests. Is that untrue?

That's the current state, yes. And it looks good. That's great. It was a
roll of the dice and we won. I'm not going to give the money back, but
I'd rather not be playing dice in the first place, even if it's a safe bet.

I hope I've made my position clear. And I hope Hartmut forgives my harsh
tone.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com