From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-03 11:30:56
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 12:25, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> On 2020-07-03 12:25, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco
> via Boost
> >> Sent: 2 July 2020 20:25
> >> To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
> >> Cc: Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]>; boost_at_[hidden] List <
> > Robert
> >> Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
> >> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Beast state of play
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ville Voutilainen <
> ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>> 110%
> >> (Note that 112% is the correct number)
> >>> "WG21 politics" as you call them do not constitute a reason to release
> >>> a possibly low-quality boost.
> >> That is certainly true, but since Asio's changes are beyond my control
> it is important for Beast
> > to be up-
> >> to-date with respect to those changes in the same release, not one
> release later.
> > All Boost releases risk causing someone trouble (and one way or another
> most do).
> > IMO Vinnie has made a good enough case for *this issue* on *this
> Vinnie's case was "because of WG21 politics". This is not a valid reason
> to compromise Boost quality, I totally agree with Ville on this. I find
> it somewhat disturbing that maintainers of a popular Boost library find
> that acceptable. Boost users experience should have a priority over WG21.
> Richard, however, presented a different case, that is:
> - Only a single test case is broken in a single configuration.
> - The test uses modern C++ features, which are expected to be rather
> unstable at this point.
> - There is a high chance that Chris will fix the problem before the
> Also, if I'm not mistaken, in the previous Boost release Boost.Beast had
> a problem in the same area, so basically Boost.Beast is not worse than
> the previous release. This is a more compelling case. I'd like to ask
> Richard to let us know if and when this problem gets resolved.
Thanks for reaching out.
Tests are all passing as of this morning.
Because of the concern around stability I have increased the size of the
test matrix that I run locally to test all legal combinations of compiler,
c++ standard and preprocessor macro selections. (Thereâs no way this would
complete in time with the free CI tools).
Latest push of PR 1999 passes all tests with no regressions.
I would expect to be merging onto master today once Vinnie has approved the
documentation and release notes.
Thank you everyone for you patience, and thanks also to Chris for
responding so quickly to our exhaustive testing.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- Richard Hodges hodges.r_at_[hidden] office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk