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

Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
From: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-19 05:09:21

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:24:16 +0000
> From: dnljms_at_[hidden]
> To: boost-maint_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
>
> 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.

I was talking about all changes on develop that aren't on master, did you think I was talking about Stephen's changes exclusively? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.