- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[1.41.0] PDF Build of documentation available.
by John Maddock 21 Nov '09

21 Nov '09

A PDF build of the documentation for Boost-1.41 (for those libraries that support it) is now available from the usual sourceforge download site: https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/ in the boost-docs/1.41.0 folder. Direct URL's are: https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-docs/1.41.0/boost_pdf_1_… (23Mb) https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-docs/1.41.0/boost_pdf_1_… (22.5Mb) https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-docs/1.41.0/boost_pdf_1_… (22.2Mb) https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-docs/1.41.0/boost_pdf_1_… (21Mb) Enjoy! John.

2 1

Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
by Andreas Huber 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

According to the schedule, John Torjo's Log2 library will be reviewed soon (currently 3rd in the queue). There's another logging proposal by Andrey Semashev (currently 13th in the queue). It seems to me that these proposals are sufficiently close in functionality that only one of them should be accepted into Boost. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to review both libraries in one (longer) formal review? Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.

19 42

[Variant] [BGL] Variant<edge_descriptor, edge_descriptor> is not EqualityComparable
by Cosimo Calabrese 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

Hi to all, this discussion is linked to "Boost.Variant is not EqualityComparable". I've opened a new one because to involve the BGL argument. The problem is simply this. I've created a union graph adaptor, that provides a "union view" of two graphs; in that adaptor, the edge_descriptor is defined like this: typedef boost::variant< WR1<typename graph_traits<Graph1>::edge_descriptor>, WR2<typename graph_traits<Graph2>::edge_descriptor> > edge_descriptor; Now I would to use that graph to the Dijkstra's algorithm, that requires that the edge_descriptor models the EqualityComparable concept. But as we know, boost::variant doesn't support the inequality expression ( v1 != v2 ). I've tried to add it from my code (I would avoid to modify the boost lib), but it doesn't works. I'm using MSVS 2005 on WinXP, boost 1.38. I've tried to add the following line, as suggested by Stefan Strasser (thanks Stefan): using namespace std::rel_ops; to add the generic operator!=(), but the compiler doesn't find it, the compiler error is the same. Now I try to provide to you more details. If it isn't enough, I can provide the entire code. I've defined the graph adaptor like this: ////// union_graph.hpp ////// #include <boost/graph/graph_traits.hpp> #include <boost/graph/properties.hpp> #include <boost/graph/adjacency_iterator.hpp> #include <boost/graph/graph_utility.hpp> #include <boost/graph/exception.hpp> #include <boost/variant.hpp> namespace boost { template <typename T> class WR1 { /* ... */ }; template <typename T> class WR2 { /* ... */ }; template <typename Graph1, typename Graph2> class union_graph { public: typedef Graph1 graph_type1; typedef Graph2 graph_type2; // Constructor union_graph( Graph1& g1, Graph2& g2 ) : m_g1(g1), m_g2(g2) { /* ... */ } // Graph requirements typedef boost::variant< WR1<typename graph_traits<Graph1>::vertex_descriptor>, WR2<typename graph_traits<Graph2>::vertex_descriptor> > vertex_descriptor; /* ... */ // IncidenceGraph requirements typedef boost::variant< WR1<typename graph_traits<Graph1>::edge_descriptor>, WR2<typename boost::graph_traits<Graph2>::edge_descriptor> > edge_descriptor; /* ... */ }; // EqualityComparable concept, requested by IncidenceGraph concept template <typename Graph1, typename Graph2> inline bool operator!=( const typename boost::graph_traits< boost::union_graph<Graph1, Graph2> >::edge_descriptor& left, const typename boost::graph_traits< boost::union_graph<Graph1, Graph2> >::edge_descriptor& right ) { return !( left == right ); } and I've used it like this: ////// main.cpp ////// #include "union_graph.hpp" int main() { typedef adjacency_list<...> Graph1; typedef adjacency_list<...> Graph2; typedef union_graph<Graph1, Graph2> UG; Graph1 g1( 10 ); Graph1 g2( 10 ); UG ug( g1, g2 ); graph_traits<UG>::edge_descriptor e1; graph_traits<UG>::edge_descriptor e2; tie( e1, existence ) = edge( v1, v2, g ); tie( e2, existence ) = edge( v1, v2, g ); e1 != e2; } The first part of the template compiler error is: 1>D:\dev\CommesseAperte\Sviluppo\TELLUS36_Librerie\boost_1_38_0\boost/concept_check.hpp(233) : error C2678: binary '!=' : no operator found which takes a left-hand operand of type 'boost::variant<T0_,T1>' (or there is no acceptable conversion) 1> with 1> [ 1> T0_=boost::WR1<boost::detail::edge_desc_impl<boost::directed_tag,__w64 unsigned int>>, 1> T1=boost::WR2<boost::detail::edge_desc_impl<boost::directed_tag,__w64 unsigned int>> 1> ] Can someone help me? I wouldn't hack the lib, because I will do it to every new version of Boost... Thanks in advance, Cosimo Calabrese.

5 17

[type_traits][V1.41] is_base_of<void, void> gives different results for gcc and vc
by Hartmut Kaiser 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

Hey, I just realized that is_base_of<void, void> gives different (inconsistent) results at least for gcc 4.3.2 (which evaluates this to false) and vc2005sp1 (evaluates to true, as earlier versions of boost did consistently, btw). This is truly a border case, but should expose consistent behavior anyways. Regards Hartmut ------------------- Meet me at BoostCon http://boostcon.com

3 5

[Release Mgt] Vladimir Prus joins release management team
by Beman Dawes 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

Vladimir Prus, aka Volodya, has been a big help in getting out timely, high-quality releases for a long time, and has now become an official release manager. Please welcome Volodya to the release team! --Beman --Daniel --Eric --Rene

1 0

Re: [boost] [Boost C++ Libraries] #3644: Getting starting simplified build from source should use a log file.
by Paul A. Bristow 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Boost C++ Libraries [mailto:noreply@lists.boost.org] > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:44 PM > Cc: boost-bugs(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: Re: [Boost C++ Libraries] #3644: Getting starting simplified build from source > should use a log file. > > #3644: Getting starting simplified build from source should use a log file. > --------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > Reporter: pbristow | Owner: > Type: Bugs | Status: new > Milestone: Boost 1.42.0 | Component: Building Boost > Version: Boost 1.41.0 | Severity: Problem > Keywords: simplified library build | > --------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > > Comment(by vladimir_prus): > > Would printing this information at the end of the build address your > concerns? Well yes it would, but surely it is always better to have a log file so you can check it went OK? Or will checking %errorlevel% tell the user that? But checking %errorlevel% doesn't tell you what libraries you have just built. (If you are using the simple 'default' build, you may not care?) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow(a)hetp.u-net.com

2 2

Re: [boost] [Boost C++ Libraries] #3646: Boost.test build of libraries - warnings ttat could be silenced.
by Paul A. Bristow 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Boost C++ Libraries [mailto:noreply@lists.boost.org] > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:24 AM > Cc: boost-bugs(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: Re: [Boost C++ Libraries] #3646: Boost.test build of libraries - warnings ttat could > be silenced. > > #3646: Boost.test build of libraries - warnings ttat could be silenced. > ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > Reporter: pbristow | Owner: rogeeff > Type: Patches | Status: new > Milestone: Boost 1.42.0 | Component: test > Version: Boost 1.41.0 | Severity: Cosmetic > Keywords: test warnings | > ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > > Comment(by steven_watanabe): > > These should probably be disabled in the source, since Boost.Test can be > used with direct #include instead of a library. Yes - but I was trying to be realistic and not over-flagellate ;-) Paul

1 0

Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review
by Tom Brinkman 20 Nov '09

20 Nov '09

Vladimir Batov wrote >> Yes, it sounds very uplifting and inspiring... and I would agree with that >> whole-heartedly... if I considered Boost merely the place of purely academic >> exercise. For many "average" programmers though the Boost libs is first and >> foremost a product that they want to *use* uniformly throughout a project, many >> projects. In that light from the commercial deployment and project management >> points of view having 2 (or worse -- plethora of) functionally-similar >> facilities readily available is a nightmare as some will end up using one >> facility and some others will prefer another facility. Shared knowledge is >> fragmented (people rarely have time and capacity to know all), code reviews, >> maintenance are difficult, the ultimate product looks unprofessional due to >> inconsistencies (in case of logging configurations, formats, destinations will >> be different). It's not an imaginary situation -- our project for various >> reasons ended up using 3 logging facilities with the very real problems >> described above. Rectifying the problem now is an expensive and tiring exercise. >> Do not get me wrong. I am all for creativity, innovation and healthy competition >> of ideas. However, all that does not have to be dumped onto the user to decide >> -- users often have no time, capacity, qualifications, freedom to make an >> educated choice. More so, users often *want* the gurus (and the level of the >> Boost community is most certainly considerably higher than the average) to make >> that educated choice for them. It's like one going to a financial planner for >> help and the planner dumping all the options on to that poor soul. Now that poor >> customer/user has to be a financial planner himself to make an educated choice. It seems to me that you are trying to make boost into something its not. Boost has never been in the business of picking the best library in a particular domain. Its a place where promising libraries can live for a while, get used, and inspire new ideas and approaches. Some of these might make into the c++ standard. I do however agree with your larger point that boost does not SCALE well. Ten years from now, its highly likely that boost will become too large to manage. People will eventually start asking to distribute boost in parts, where the "core" libraries are separated from the "experimental" libraries. For boost to remain popular and successful, this issue will eventually have to be addressed. Fortunately, it probably does not need to be addressed for a few years.

3 2

Re: [boost] [python] 1.41.0 importing python extensions fails
by Okko Willeboordse 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Solved it mistake on my side sorry

1 0

[python] 1.41.0 importing python extensions fails
by Okko Willeboordse 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Using MSVC 2008 on windows server 2003, Python 2.6.2 Importing python extension modules fails. As an example I compiled the tutorial hello world example; char const* greet() { return "hello, world"; } #include <boost/python.hpp> BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(hello_ext) { using namespace boost::python; def("greet", greet); in to a dll named hello_ext.pyd. When I try to import the extension I get; >>> import hello_ext Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> ImportError: DLL load failed: The specified module could not be found. In the debugger I see that hello_ext.pyd is loaded and unloaded; 'python': Loaded 'D:\Projects\GAIUS\owillebo\temp\test\Debug\hello_ext.pyd' 'python': Unloaded 'D:\Projects\GAIUS\owillebo\temp\test\Debug\hello_ext.pyd' Digging in to it. Can anyone confirm this?

1 0

Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review
by Tom Brinkman 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

I was the review manager of the two futures libraries and a former review wizard. Two issues that I see: 1) Should we review two or more libraries at the same time No. Because of time commitments and lack of review managers, coordinating two reviews at the same time is too difficult. It has not worked. 2) Should we approve libraries that have significant duplication with another library already in boost? Yes. Each library should be reviewed independently, and approved if it meets the boost community standards. Boost libraries already has lots of overlap, no reason to change at this point. What we should do is encourage the authors to work together submit a combined library. Unfortunately, that has not worked either. The trend is probably going to be more and more library duplication, but this does not concern me. I would find it perfectly acceptable if another "command line" parser was approved, or even if another text parser was approved. The more the better. It shows that boost is still interesting place to come and see what talented c++ developers are up too. There are many ways to abstract a solution and build an interface around it. Boost should encourage a diversity of approaches.

2 1

[thread] 1.41.0 MSVC warning
by Okko Willeboordse 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Building 1.41.0 went fine. Compiling my code failed because of a compiler warning. I had to modify ..\thread\future.hpp like below to silence MSVC 2008 SP1 on windows server 2003; 409 #pragma warning(push) 410 #pragma warning(disable: 4267) 411 all_futures_lock(std::vector<registered_waiter>& futures): 412 count(futures.size()),locks(new boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>[count]) 413 { 414 for(unsigned i=0;i<count;++i) 415 { 416 locks[i]=boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>(futures[i].future->mutex); 417 } 418 } 419 #pragma warning(pop)

1 0

Fix graph_parallel compilation
by Vladimir Prus 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Current trunk does not compile for me as follows: ./boost/graph/distributed/detail/mpi_process_group.ipp: In function ‘int boost::graph::distributed::receive(const boost::graph::distributed::mpi_process_group&, int, int, T&)’: ./boost/graph/distributed/detail/mpi_process_group.ipp:722: error: ‘stderr’ was not declared in this scope ./boost/graph/distributed/detail/mpi_process_group.ipp:724: error: there are no arguments to ‘fprintf’ that depend on a template parameter, so a declaration of ‘fprintf’ must be available ./boost/graph/distributed/detail/mpi_process_group.ipp:724: note: (if you use ‘-fpermissive’, G++ will accept your code, but allowing the use of an undeclared name is deprecated) ./boost/graph/distributed/detail/mpi_process_group.ipp: In function ‘typename boost::enable_if<boost::mpi::is_mpi_datatype<T>, std::pair<int, unsigned int> >::type boost::graph::distributed::receive(const boost::graph::distributed::mpi_process_group&, int, int, T*, size_t)’: OK to apply the attached? - Volodya

2 2

[BGL] [PropertyMap] Key param is passed by value in put function
by Cosimo Calabrese 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Hi to all, I've noticed that the put function that takes a generic put_get_helper map, takes a key param. The question is: why the key param is passed by value? Is any reason for this? The key value is not modified setting the property map. I've noticed it because in my graph type the descriptors are variant, and so every time I've to set a property map, a new copy of the variant is created. I've reported the function below, for sake of comfort. It is in boost/property_map.hpp template <class PropertyMap, class Reference, class K, class V> inline void put(const put_get_helper<Reference, PropertyMap>& pa, K k, const V& v) { static_cast<const PropertyMap&>(pa)[k] = v; } Best regards, Cosimo Calabrese

3 4

Boost release 1.41.0 available
by Beman Dawes 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Boost release 1.41.0 is now available. This release contains one new library and numerous bug fixes for existing libraries. For details, including download links, see http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1_41_0 The release can also be downloaded directly from SourceForge. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/ To install this release on your system, see http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_41_0/more/getting_started/index.html Thanks, --The Boost release team

3 2

passing compiler options
by Lorenzo Bettini 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Hi after running bootstrap.sh, if I want to pass my compiler (in this case cygwin), is it correct to modify project-config.jam and replace if ! gcc in [ feature.values <toolset> ] { using gcc ; } with using gcc : : : <compileflags>-DBOOST_WINDOWS_API <compileflags>-mno-cygwin <linkflags>-mno-cygwin ; this way, am I sure that these compiler options will be passed to the compiler? thanks in advance Lorenzo

2 4

GGL issues
by Jose 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Hi, I am reviewing the library and trying to adapt some of the shapelib examples that don't seem to be included in the formal_review distribution. Any reason why the latlong.hpp is not included ? Without the typedefs the examples are harder to get working e.g. ring_ll_deg or area ring regards

3 16

GGL documentation issue
by Thomas Klimpel 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Dear GGL authors, This is still not a review. However, the documentation issue I found doesn't allow be to submit a (positive) review before the issue is clarified. > - What is your evaluation of the documentation? Looks like "work in progress" to me. There are examples, but examples are not a sufficient substitute for a proper documentation. But I wonder whether it's just me, or whether the documentation is really insufficient. I know the library has a "ring concept", so let's try to find out from the documentation what it is. On "Related Pages" -> "OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium)" the following definition can be found: linear_ring: Sequence of point values with linear interpolation between points, which is closed and not self-intersecting On "Modules" -> "geometry concepts: defines and checks concepts for geometries" -> "ring concept More..." the following can be found: template<typename Geometry> class ggl::concept::Ring< Geometry > ring concept Formal definition: The ring concept is defined as following: * there must be a specialization of traits::tag defining ring_tag as type * it must behave like a Boost.Range * there can optionally be a specialization of traits::point_order defining the order or orientation of its points, clockwise or counterclockwise. * either it can behave like the std library, having pushback * or it can implement a mechanism for clearing and adding points. This is the same as the for the concept Linestring, and described there. Note: to fulfil the concepts, no traits class has to be specialized to define the point type. The point type is taken using boost::range_value<X>::type Both explanations don't seem to clarify what a ring really, so let's continue to browse the documentation. On "Modules" -> "A Generic Geometry Library (web-copy of article for BoostCon'09)", it is described how a triangle can be handled as a linear ring. This is indeed illuminating, because I learn from it that a "ring" is indeed a geometric figure with a non-zero area, and that there is no requirement for the first and last point of the ring to be equal. And "Example" -> "c04_b_custom_triangle_example.cpp" also contains the example from the article, so I went and tried it. It seemed to work well, but then I tried what happens when I comment out the area specialization. Suddenly the area was zero??? And I'm really confused now: What I initially wanted to find out was whether a ring is a geometric figure with a non-zero area. Now I'm wondering whether there is a requirement for the first and last point of a ring to be equal. A look at "Example" -> "c04_a_custom_triangle_example.cpp" indicates that this might indeed be the case: struct triangle : public boost::array<ggl::point_xy<double>, 4> My conclusion is that the documentation of the "geometry concepts" is insufficient, because I'm not even able now to tell whether there is a bug in the library or a bug in the example. And that the examples that are provided instead of a proper documentation contradict each other doesn't help either. Please clarify: a) Do you agree that the documentation of the "geometry concepts" is currently insufficient, because both the intended semantic meaning and the exact constraints on valid "values" for objects modeling the "geometric concepts" are not documented? b) Why are there two examples that more or less contradict each other? c) Is there a bug in the area function, or are both "Modules" -> "A Generic Geometry Library (web-copy of article for BoostCon'09)" and "Example" -> "c04_b_custom_triangle_example.cpp" wrong? Regards, Thomas

2 3

[1.41] mpi + python + multiple variants
by Vladimir Prus 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

There was a report on IRC that 1.41 beta fails to build with the following command: ./bjam threading=single,multi --with-python --with-mpi --layout=versioned because Boost.Build reports target name clash on stage/lib/mpi.so. And sure it does. The mpi Jamfiles specify that a Python extension called 'mpi' should be built if Python is available. However, nothing adjusts the name of python extension, so ST and MT variants get the same name, and clash. For all I know, this problem was there all the time, so holding 1.41 for it is not necessary. But still would be nice to fix, and for that, I need an opinion from either MPI or Python experts here. 1. Shall the name of extension module be adjusted? If so, how? I doublt that Python users will jump with joy if asked to do 'import mpi-mt-gd-gcc34'. 2. Shall a specific variant be pinned? 3. Anything else? Thanks, Volodya

2 3

Another GGL review
by Jose 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

YES, the library should be accepted (only show stopper is that it has to include the non-cartesian coordinates so that the library can be useful as is without resorting to additional extensions) - What is your evaluation of the design? The design is good and has taken input in multiple iterations from the community. Also, it's a very strong point that the library provides open benchmarks with multiple libraries so that the performance standing of the library can be evaluated. The week point is that the library does not satisfy the needs of some application domains (e.g. VLSI domain) where floating point types are not acceptable. It's unfortunate that this review has been muddled by the recent boost.polygon review. This is a topic beyond this review and specific to the boost review process. I think in this case it should be determined by at least two experts whether it is possible to have a generic library that can satisfy the multiple application domains, and if yes, then take GGL as the base, update the design and incorporate boost polygon algorithms as appropriate. - What is your evaluation of the implementation? The library should incorporate the key extensions that make it useful right away, i.e. non-cartesian coordinates. Not including these will hamper the usefulness and adoption of the library. An example where this happened was the GIL library, it had a wonderful generic design but a key numeric extension was not included in the Boost library. As a result, the adoption has been very limited and the key extension not updated or bug-fixed, with some algorithms being ported and some libraries being built on top, but not wide use. I think the problem with the PROJ dependency could be handled similary to the MPI library, that provides bindings to the C library. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? The docs have to show how it can be used in multiple domains, GIS, CAD, VLSI, .. Same with the examples. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Very high. A broad library that could be a great match for Boost. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Yes. g++ 4.4.1 on x86_64 Did you have any problems? YES, because the non-cartesian extension was not part of the library. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? 10+ hours. Studied both GTL/GGL papers/presentations presented in BoostCon09. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes, the GIS application domain but not core geometry and other important domains.

8 21

Differences between trunk and release for 1.41.0
by Marshall Clow 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Based on svn revision 57747 -- Marshall

1 0

Re: [boost] [Boost.Locale] For Preliminary Review of Boost Community (with Full documentation)
by Fabio Fracassi 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Hi, just wanted to send a short note of appreciation for your library (http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/boost_locale/docs/) From glancing at the documentation there will finally be a good localization lib in boost. (Where I think it is sorely needed, since localization should be a standard feature IMHO) I have used QT's localization features before, and really liked them. This was something I really missed since I am working with std strings, but it seems that your locale lib is au-par with what Qt has to offer. Maybe one could even make it compatible with QT .ts/.qm files one day, so that one could use the fine QtLinguist Tools. (I have never used the gettext tools) Regards, and keep up the good work Fabio Fracassi P.S. Sorry that I messed up threading, but I didn't find the original message.

2 2

Bug sprint suggestions
by Marshall Clow 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

If you would like to participate in the bug sprint but don't know where to begin, here are some suggestions. Here are a list of open issues that aren't connected to any milestone: <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=re…> Some of these are feature requests, and don't really have a milestone where they will be provided, but sometimes the bugs tend to get missed. -- Marshall

1 0

[1.41.0] Release candidate 3
by Beman Dawes 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

The third, and hopefully final, release candidate is now available. The VC++ build problems are resolved, at least on my system. http://boost.cowic.de/rc/boost_1_41_0.tar.bz2 - Unix line endings http://boost.cowic.de/rc/boost_1_41_0.tar.gz - Unix line endings http://boost.cowic.de/rc/boost_1_41_0.7z - Windows line endings http://boost.cowic.de/rc/boost_1_41_0.zip - Windows line endings Please download and do a test build, reporting successes as well as failures. The release procedures have been updated so that in the future the release manager will do at least one build locally, to try to head off repeats of today's fiasco. --Beman

6 14

The Bug sprint has begun!
by Marshall Clow 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

The bug sprint will from today until Sunday, November 29th. For those in the USA, that includes the long Thanksgiving weekend. As of 8:00 AM PST today, there are currently have 859 open tickets. The goal is to classify and fix bugs, and to close resolve Trac tickets. For those just joining in, the tickets live at https://svn.boost.org The instructions (mostly repeated here) for the last bug sprint are at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BugSprintJune2009 What can you do? You can fix bugs • If you are a library maintainer, you can commit your fixes. • If you are not a library maintainer, you can fix a problem on your local machine (and test it!!), and then attach your fix as a patch to the Trac ticket for the library maintainer to commit. If you do this, please provide a test case that exercises the problem; i.e, one that fails w/o your patch, and succeeds afterwards. You can characterize bugs • You can attempt to replicate the bug on your system(s), and attach information that you discover to the Trac ticket. This will make it easier for other people to solve the problem, even if you cannot. • You can write test cases demonstrating the problem, and attach them to the Trac ticket. • You can determine if the bug still exists; sometimes they get fixed, and the ticket never gets closed. In this case, try to identify a checkin that addresses the bug; it's always suspicious when bugs go away "by accident." You can test patches • Some of the tickets in the Trac system contain patches - some are quite old. You can install these patches on your system, and determine if they (a) build, and (b) work. If you do this, please provide detail. Don't just say "works for me" - say "I installed this over revision XXX on system YYY with compiler ZZZ. The patch installed and compiled successfully, and passed all the tests." • You can write test cases for the patches, and attach them to the ticket. You can help implement new features • There are a whole set of "feature requests" in the Trac system. If you have an idea about one of these, you can add comments to the Trac system. You can attempt to implement these new features, and attach the patch to the ticket. (Don't forget the test cases!!). There are several Trac reports that I find helpful for looking at the bugs: Open ticket count by owner: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/18 (Note that there are 10 tickets that have no owner!) Open ticket count by component: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/19 Open ticket count by type https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/20 (Overwhelmingly, these are 'bugs') Open ticket count by milestone: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/21 (Many old milestones here, including 62 tickets w/o a milestone) and, of course, the main report at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/1 -- Marshall

1 0