Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-16 14:49:42
On 10/16/18 7:23 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Alexander Grund wrote:
> which does indeed crash
> That's easy enough to follow and does show a legitimate problem, in my
> opinion, although Robert refuses to acknowledge it for some reason.
The test does not show anything at all. It's ill conceived. A similar
test could be made and it might be useful, but if I do all I'll get is a
lot of heat from people who haven't take the time to understand what is
actually going on.
> the only failures are with Clang and they happen without your patch as
My version of the patch captures the essence of the PR while retaining
the original intent of the code. It's much simpler and alters many less
files. I have no idea why I am being criticized for making this patch.
> In either case, it has to be Robert who approves and applies the patch,
> as "the community" doesn't understand the library as well as he does. (I
> certainly do not.)
FWIW - I often forget how the library works. Sometimes an issue comes
up with code that hasn't been visited in over a decade. In such cases I
have to review the documentation, tests and source code. I think I'm
the only one who actually does this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk