Hi, I would like to merge 82654 and 82655 to the release branch. The first is the fix for issue #7920 and the latter a fix for a broken test case. Both only touch the qt5 toolset and tests. Bothe checked in yesterday and have cycled. Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! * voice: ++49 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : ++49 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * jhunold@gmx.eu ! Germany
On 01/29/2013 03:11 AM, Jürgen Hunold wrote:
Hi,
I would like to merge 82654 and 82655 to the release branch. The first is the fix for issue #7920 and the latter a fix for a broken test case. Both only touch the qt5 toolset and tests.
Bothe checked in yesterday and have cycled.
I would be extremely reluctant to take fixes to Boost.Build at this point since the potential for havoc is so high. I'd like to understand how serious the bug is and what it is blocking. I'd also like to hear what the other release managers think. Eric
On 29 January 2013 21:33, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 01/29/2013 03:11 AM, Jürgen Hunold wrote:
Hi,
I would like to merge 82654 and 82655 to the release branch. The first is the fix for issue #7920 and the latter a fix for a broken test case. Both only touch the qt5 toolset and tests.
Bothe checked in yesterday and have cycled.
I would be extremely reluctant to take fixes to Boost.Build at this point since the potential for havoc is so high. I'd like to understand how serious the bug is and what it is blocking. I'd also like to hear what the other release managers think.
I can't connect to the boost server at the moment, so I haven't looked at the changes, or what the issue is. But if it the qt5 fix only involves code that isn't usually loaded, then it might not be that problematic. Depends on what the change actually is though. I don't think it's worth fixing a test case.
Hi Eric and Daniel On Wednesday, 30. January 2013 10:49:47 Daniel James wrote:
On 29 January 2013 21:33, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
I would be extremely reluctant to take fixes to Boost.Build at this point since the potential for havoc is so high. I'd like to understand how serious the bug is and what it is blocking. I'd also like to hear what the other release managers think.
I can't connect to the boost server at the moment, so I haven't looked at the changes, or what the issue is. But if it the qt5 fix only involves code that isn't usually loaded, then it might not be that problematic. Depends on what the change actually is though.
The bug is here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7920 I just forgot one of the new qt5 modules. http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/82654
I don't think it's worth fixing a test case.
Agreed. I can http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/82655 merge later. It seems we don't have a regression tester with qt4/5 configured anyway. Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! * voice: ++49 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : ++49 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * jhunold@gmx.eu ! Germany
On 30 January 2013 15:21, Jürgen Hunold <jhunold@gmx.eu> wrote:
On Wednesday, 30. January 2013 10:49:47 Daniel James wrote:
On 29 January 2013 21:33, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
I would be extremely reluctant to take fixes to Boost.Build at this point since the potential for havoc is so high. I'd like to understand how serious the bug is and what it is blocking. I'd also like to hear what the other release managers think.
I can't connect to the boost server at the moment, so I haven't looked at the changes, or what the issue is. But if it the qt5 fix only involves code that isn't usually loaded, then it might not be that problematic. Depends on what the change actually is though.
The bug is here:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7920
I just forgot one of the new qt5 modules.
Oh, I don't know. It looks like the change is pretty safe, and unlikely to affect anyone who isn't using qt5. But it also doesn't look vital enough to justify including it at this late stage. I believe we're meant to be quite strict about this. So, I'm afraid I lean towards not letting it in.
HI Daniel, On Wednesday, 30. January 2013 16:27:57 Daniel James wrote:
Oh, I don't know. It looks like the change is pretty safe, and unlikely to affect anyone who isn't using qt5. But it also doesn't look vital enough to justify including it at this late stage. I believe we're meant to be quite strict about this. So, I'm afraid I lean towards not letting it in.
So be it. I'm on vacation until Sunday, so I can't merge anyway. I will merge the fix as soon as the release branch opens again. Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! * voice: ++49 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : ++49 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * jhunold@gmx.eu ! Germany
participants (3)
-
Daniel James -
Eric Niebler -
Jürgen Hunold