Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION

Subject: Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 12:43:19

On 10/10/2013 03:47 PM, Sergey Cheban wrote:
> On 10.10.2013 17:08, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >>>> I think it is reasonable to push them in several days after
> releasing
> >>>> 1.55 (providing there is no significant negative feedback).
> >>> That makes no sense at all. My patches affect the master branch,
> not the
> >>> release branch.
> >> The current gap between the trunk and release branches looks strange
> >> for me. I've read several times about changesets that were living on
> >> the trunk for a long time without being merged to the release. I think
> >> that this practice is bad and the changesets on the trunk should be
> >> merged to the release branch ASAP providing the tests are green.
> > This is so shocking that I'm certain I've misunderstood you.

Well, apparently I did not misunderstand you. :) Color me shocked.

What is the point of creating a release branch to stabilize, if you are
just going to merge trunk back into it later?

Especially for such very dubious reasoning as 'it looks strange to me'?

Define strange.

> May be I just don't understand the current boost workflow. But as I
> can see the current workflow leads to the problems like the following:

You're quoting things out of context instead of linking to gmane where
there would be context.

If you wish though, I can make guesses at what's going on.

> ========================================
> On 09.10.2013 3:12, Rich E wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing that Fusion has not been updated with fixes for #5010
> > <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5010#comment:24> a /3/ /year
> > old(!)/ bug, that is reported as fixed. Why is this? From what I can
> > tell, changeset #4441
> <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/84441>
> > fixes the issues I ran into, but the 1.55beta package doesn't reflect
> > this...
> ========================================

What happened? Did someone commit the fix to trunk instead of release?
If so, then maybe they made a mistake. If it was a mistake, then
cherry-pick the commit. Done. No big deal. Mistakes happen.

> and following:
>
> ========================================
> On 03.08.2013 1:33, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > Tim Blechmann <tim <at> klingt.org> writes:
> >> i've reported an issue before that boost.test in the release branch is
> >> pretty broken. *all* tests of the boost.heap testsuite segfault
> like this:
> >
> > There were no changes in boost release for several years.

It is my understanding that the release branch should contain the boost
1.5.5 beta. With that understanding in mind, I can't understand this
quoted sentence. What does it mean?

> Can you wor karound
> > it for now?
> >
> >> boost.test in trunk works fine, though ... i wonder, will it
> eventually
> >> be merged to release?
> >
> > I lost my work on new docs unfortunately to broken laptop, still
> trying to
> > revive it, but I'm lacking time to really get to it. Maybe this can
> give me
> > another reason to finally push it out.
> ========================================

Broken laptops are not related to trunk and release branches. I don't
know why you quoted this.

>
> and following:
> ========================================
> On 08.10.2013 12:50, Akira Takahashi wrote:
> > 2013/10/8 Domagoj Saric <dsaritz_at_[hidden] <mailto:dsaritz_at_[hidden]>>
> ...
> >     With MSVC12 RC:
> >       * 1.54 and 1.55 b1 RC - lots of:
> >     ..\boost/iterator/detail/__facade_iterator_category.hpp(__166) :
> error
> >     C2039: 'assert_not_arg' : is not a member of 'boost::mpl'
> >
> >
> > This issue fixed by this commit.
> > http://lists.boost.org/boost-commit/2013/05/46330.php
> >
> > However, not merge to release branch yet.
> ========================================

What's the problem? If someone writes that it is not merged *yet*, then
they intend to apply it to the release branch somehow, right?

Is merging trunk into release part of the boost release strategy?

Thanks,

Steve.