Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a new submodule, tools/depinst
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-11-11 14:53:54

On 11/11/16 22:45, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> On 11/11/16 21:26, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> wgetting a random version rubs me the wrong way. Test results should be
>>>> reproducible.
>>> Hmm.. Are you saying that getting an old version of the regression tools
>>> that "matches" a particular checkout of the libraries at some point in
>>> time
>>> should always work and be a measure of reproduction?
>> I think that's correct. In my work, I have a number of scripts to build
>> various libraries, some of which are downloaded from git or other SCMs. It
>> is essential that whenever those scripts are run, they use exactly the same
>> source to build the package. This is usually achieved by checking out a
>> particular tag or revision.
> See my answer to this in the other response.. But essentially.. Think about
> what happens when the test infrastructure changes.

Not sure what you mean here.

> I think Boost, as a whole, should support this usage. I realize that
>> checking out a particular revision of each git submodule will always work,
>> but since we already use superproject as the synchronization means of
>> different submodules, checking out a revision of superproject should work.
> Haha.. That's really funny. The super project gives as much synchronization
> guarantee as a human passing around pieces of physical paper around the
> world as he makes changes to them ;-)

   git checkout boost-1.62.0
   git submodule update

Am I not guaranteed to have Boost 1.62 after these commands? If not,
something is terribly wrong with the release process.

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