Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What are the things that we HAVE TO fix before shipping 1.56.0?
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-29 20:51:49


On Jul 29, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Eric Niebler <eniebler_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 7/29/2014 3:39 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> On 07/29/2014 01:36 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Eric Niebler <eniebler_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2014 8:18 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>>> On 7/29/2014 12:32 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>> We’re coming down to the end of the release process, so I’m taking a poll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * What bugs do you think MUST be fixed before shipping 1.56?
>>>>>>> In other words, if bug XXX is not fixed, then (in your opinion) we should not bother making a release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the issue in the nearby thread [1] needs to be fixed before
>>>>>> the release. The fix is rather simple anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/07/215581.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you/someone file a bug? It's unlikely to get fixed otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I see the pull request now.[*] I agree, it'd be nice to have this
>>>> fix, but I'm not anxious to hold up the release. Marshall?
>>>>
>>>> [*] https://github.com/boostorg/asio/pull/7
>>>
>>> I’m really leery of putting something in the release that hasn’t gone through a test cycle.
>>
>> Naturally. But see [1] for another case where this is a problem. It
>> looks bad. We have two choices:
>>
>> 1) Hold up the release while we work on a fix and run some emergency tests.
>> 2) Release as-is, then quickly roll a point release.
>>
>> The fact that two people have reported the issue separately gives me pause.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/boost-developers-archive/6JVNg7ZPb4k/RAlvPUec4MAJ
>
> More information, cc'ing Neil.
>
> The problem is this commit is Boost.Range:
>
> https://github.com/boostorg/range/commit/1d91272a551df2cd1776d6447c0e39a14f660c17
>
> The change to the free relational operators is causing havoc. The fix
> should be as simple as reverting to the 1.55 formulation of them. I'll
> send a patch shortly.
>
> Neil, please chime in ASAP if you think that's the wrong fix.

Let’s get this checked into Boost.Range, and watch the tests.
[ And people can run their own tests, too ]

— Marshall


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk