Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers

Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-16 15:21:41

On 10/16/18 8:11 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 7:23 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>>
>> > https://github.com/boostorg/serialization/pull/111/files
>> >
>> > which does indeed crash
>> >
>> > https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/serialization/jobs/441654483#L2546
>> >
>> > 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.
> 
> What is ill-conceived about it? It's a minimal example of two shared 
> libraries each using Serialization. As Alexander says, it's a simplified 
> version of a crash they had in one of their projects.

First of all, the test changes every time I look at it.  It's hard to 
follow.

On the last version I looked at - since no there is not 
BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT(class name) invoked, there are no indexed entries in 
the extended type info tables so get_key() should return null under any 
circumstances.  It tests nothing.  Worse, it betrays the fact that the 
author of the test, and anyone who doesn't see a problem with it, have 
read neither the document nor the source code. Rather than asking 
"What's ill conceived about it" better to ask - "What is this supposed 
to be testing?"

Robert Ramey

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>