Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-16 16:48:26
> If you keep saying that the test is bad / irrelevant, it is no wonder
> the author changes the code to improve it.
And there have been no major changes. Just comments and return value
check changes as per PR comments.
> If I understand this correctly, the purpose of the test is to show that the
> application crashes. In that case, the return value is completely irrelevant.
> What I don't know: Is there a travis build that shows that the test from Flamefire
> (https://github.com/boostorg/serialization/pull/111/files ) still fails
> with the changes introduced by Robert (I'm not sure when they were introduced)?
I rebased the changes to develop yesterday. So yes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk