Eric Niebler wrote:
On 1/25/2011 2:10 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
May I ask for permission to remove the files instead of poisoning them? The risk is the same, but the result much more desirable...
Sorry, no. We have a way to avoid changing build files just before release. Let's take it.
That does not seem reasonable to me. IIUC, the changes to build files involve remove N tests, which is a low-risk change that can be fully validated locally. Leaving broken code in seems much worse.
The question to answer is: was the original issue a showstopper or not? I had decided it was not because it breaks no code in the field. That seems reasonable to me.
You seem to take a block-diagram-driven approach. "Is this a showstopper -- yes, no?". The real decision here is either shipping a broken code, or doing a relatively safe code change to remove all traces thereof.
And if you disagreed, the time to speak up was days ago.
There's some truth to that; except -- aren't the most recent messages in this thread dated Jan 23 and Jan 24 -- which is yesterday and the other day? In fact, what is the status here? I though that utree code was removed, and Jamfiles were modified to not run relevant tests. Is that untrue? - Volodya -- Vladimir Prus Mentor Graphics +7 (812) 677-68-40