Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not. Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now. Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I
It's related to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy>, and <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat>.
I see. Sorry you got this impression -- I merely wanted to say that it 1.34.1 is claimed to fix cygwin issues, then cygwin better work.
understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3 appear to lack this fix.
Indeed... I though I did everything I was supposed to do procedure wise. That is I did everything I did for the other bugs. Is there something I should have done differently? Was there some miscommunication?
This is what I'm wondering about. In fact, looking at http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/2, I see quite a number of issues reported for 1.34.0. Ideally, our issue workflow should be arranged so that all issues reported for 1.N.0 are evaluated when planning 1.N.1. - Volodya