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 06:32:54

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:25:29 +0000
> From: dnljms_at_[hidden]
> To: boost-maint_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request
>
> On 19 February 2014 10:09, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> 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.
>
> I'm talking about both at once, so perhaps a bit muddled. We've had
> these issues for a long time. I've often thought of suggesting
> something similar in the past.


At least we both want to see the situation improve. :)

I'd love to see develop and master have the same code, but I'm really not sure how to get there, unfortunately.