Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request

Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-19 04:24:16

On 19 February 2014 09:08, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:50:14 +0000
>> From: dnljms_at_[hidden]
>> To: boost-maint_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
>>
>> On 19 February 2014 06:46, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we (Boost) are committed to merging Stephen's changes to master.
>>
>> We're not really, he made them after being asked not to. It's up to
>> individual libraries' maintainers whether they want to use them. IMO
>> what we should do with modules where no one is dealing with changes on
>> develop (all of them, not just Stephen Kelly's) is revert them in
>> develop and create feature branches so that we can get master and
>> develop in sync, but keep a record of the outstanding changes.
>
> I'd rather take a less heavy handed approach and determine if the changes in develop are easily merged to master and avoid having the changes potentially get lost.

It's not just a case of whether they can be merged or not. Some are
large and potentially disruptive to fairly arcane but stable code.
Some changes remove headers which is problematic, even if they are in
'detail' directories. And there are people still using old compilers
who rely on the support for them.