Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers? I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855 Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge? --Beman
On 5 July 2011 12:33, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge
Sorry, I thought Eric was dealing with it. It looks okay to me. Have any of the people with the issue checked that the fix works for them?
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Just a link fix: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72907/
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 July 2011 12:33, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge
Sorry, I thought Eric was dealing with it. It looks okay to me. Have any of the people with the issue checked that the fix works for them?
No reply yet to my list posting. The local_info.cpp program just added to trunk, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72920/, has been run with both default (I.E. valid) and deliberately invalid locale settings on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, PC-BSD, and Solaris. Results are as expected. That was one of the missing pieces, and ensures that my mental model of how valid and invalid locales actually work on various operating systems is correct, by the way.
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Just a link fix:
OK to merge than one, with my permission. It would be great if we could finish merges today, so that we can build the release candidate tomorrow unless some tests fail unexpectedly. --Beman
AMDG On 07/05/2011 04:33 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I have 2 Random fixes: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72825 http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72826 Both of these remove interface breaking changes. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
On 07/05/2011 04:33 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I have 2 Random fixes:
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72825 http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72826
Both of these remove interface breaking changes.
Were these supposed to fix TR1 run_random and run_std_random tests? They still seem to be failing. --Beman
AMDG On 07/05/2011 07:41 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/05/2011 04:33 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I have 2 Random fixes:
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72825 http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72826
Both of these remove interface breaking changes.
Were these supposed to fix TR1 run_random and run_std_random tests? They still seem to be failing.
Those tests didn't even compile before. The failures now are a result of the changes in the seeding algorithm. The old seeding algorithms were bizarre and inconsistent, so I really don't want to go back. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
I have 2 Random fixes:
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72825 http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72826
Both of these remove interface breaking changes.
Were these supposed to fix TR1 run_random and run_std_random tests? They still seem to be failing.
Those tests didn't even compile before. The failures now are a result of the changes in the seeding algorithm. The old seeding algorithms were bizarre and inconsistent, so I really don't want to go back.
OK, understood. Please go ahead and merge those changesets. Is anyone working on changing the TR1 tests to match the seeding? Should you open a ticket? --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
I have 2 Random fixes:
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72825 http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72826
Both of these remove interface breaking changes.
Were these supposed to fix TR1 run_random and run_std_random tests? They still seem to be failing.
Those tests didn't even compile before. The failures now are a result of the changes in the seeding algorithm. The old seeding algorithms were bizarre and inconsistent, so I really don't want to go back.
OK, understood. Please go ahead and merge those changesets.
Is anyone working on changing the TR1 tests to match the seeding? Should you open a ticket?
Change to seeding? Does this mean that random sequences generated with the same seeds as used pre-1.47 will be different? Does this mean that all my tests that used random number generators will now fail to match previous results? If so, please say something in release notes.
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de. [1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Adam Merz <adammerz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de.
[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
A few days ago I posted a patch file that fixes this problem, someone needs to apply it to the release branch. I'm attaching the patch to this post as well. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On 7/5/2011 12:43 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Adam Merz <adammerz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de.
[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
A few days ago I posted a patch file that fixes this problem, someone needs to apply it to the release branch.
Posted where? Has it been committed to trunk? Are the tests passing?
I'm attaching the patch to this post as well.
It typically works like this: things are fixed on trunk. When the tests are passing there, the library maintainer asks a release manager for permission to merge to release, and they include a URL to the changeset they would like to merge. Are you asking for permission to merge? Can you send a URL? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2011 12:43 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Adam Merz <adammerz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de.
[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
A few days ago I posted a patch file that fixes this problem, someone needs to apply it to the release branch.
Posted where? Has it been committed to trunk? Are the tests passing?
I'm attaching the patch to this post as well.
It typically works like this: things are fixed on trunk. When the tests are passing there, the library maintainer asks a release manager for permission to merge to release, and they include a URL to the changeset they would like to merge.
Are you asking for permission to merge? Can you send a URL?
There has been no reply to Eric's query above:-( I'll see if I can reproduce the problem and test the patch. --Beman
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2011 12:43 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Adam Merz <adammerz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de.
[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
A few days ago I posted a patch file that fixes this problem, someone needs to apply it to the release branch.
Posted where? Has it been committed to trunk? Are the tests passing?
I'm attaching the patch to this post as well.
It typically works like this: things are fixed on trunk. When the tests are passing there, the library maintainer asks a release manager for permission to merge to release, and they include a URL to the changeset they would like to merge.
Are you asking for permission to merge? Can you send a URL?
There has been no reply to Eric's query above:-(
I'll see if I can reproduce the problem and test the patch.
I'm not able to reproduce this problem on either the current trunk or branches/release. Thus I'm unwilling to apply the patch. I'm building release candidates now. Once those go up on the ftp site, perhaps the OP could try again. And if it fails, give us the exact build command line that is failing. --Beman
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> wrote:
There has been no reply to Eric's query above
I'll see if I can reproduce the problem and test the patch.
I'm not able to reproduce this problem on either the current trunk or branches/release. Thus I'm unwilling to apply the patch.
I'm building release candidates now. Once those go up on the ftp site, perhaps the OP could try again. And if it fails, give us the exact build command line that is failing.
I can confirm that the issue is still present in the boost_1_47_0.7z package from boost.cowic.de/rc/ timestamped '2011-Jul-07 16:06:52'. My environment is Win7 x64, MSVC10 SP1. My build command lines are as follows: x86 debug: bjam.exe --without-mpi --without-python --build-type=complete toolset=msvc-10.0 architecture=x86 address-model=32 extern-c-nothrow=on debug stage x86 release: bjam.exe --without-mpi --without-python --build-type=complete toolset=msvc-10.0 architecture=x86 address-model=32 extern-c-nothrow=on cxxflags="/GS- /arch:SSE2 /GL" linkflags="/OPT:REF /OPT:ICF /LTCG" release stage x64 debug: bjam.exe --without-mpi --without-python --build-type=complete toolset=msvc-10.0 architecture=x86 address-model=64 extern-c-nothrow=on debug stage x64 release: bjam.exe --without-mpi --without-python --build-type=complete toolset=msvc-10.0 architecture=x86 address-model=64 extern-c-nothrow=on cxxflags="/GS- /GL" linkflags="/OPT:REF /OPT:ICF /LTCG" release stage All four variants experience the same issue.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2011 12:43 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Adam Merz <adammerz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
I don't know that it's a 'showstopper' per se, but the issue reported here [1] is still present in boost-windows-2011-07-04.7z downloaded from boost.cowic.de.
[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/06/183054.php
A few days ago I posted a patch file that fixes this problem, someone needs to apply it to the release branch.
Posted where? Has it been committed to trunk? Are the tests passing?
I'm attaching the patch to this post as well.
It typically works like this: things are fixed on trunk. When the tests are passing there, the library maintainer asks a release manager for permission to merge to release, and they include a URL to the changeset they would like to merge.
Are you asking for permission to merge? Can you send a URL?
There has been no reply to Eric's query above:-(
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge. --Beman
On 7 July 2011 21:33, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge.
Does that mean that John's merge is okay as well?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge.
I'm requesting permission to merge. A new test, "non_intrusive_exception_ptr_test" was introduced. The results for a few of the platforms haven't yet been updated, however I've tested mingw/gcc and msvc-10.0 myself, they're OK. See http://tinyurl.com/5awaec. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On 7/8/2011 11:23 AM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge.
I'm requesting permission to merge.
A new test, "non_intrusive_exception_ptr_test" was introduced. The results for a few of the platforms haven't yet been updated, however I've tested mingw/gcc and msvc-10.0 myself, they're OK.
Which changeset are you proposing to merge? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2011 11:23 AM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge.
I'm requesting permission to merge.
A new test, "non_intrusive_exception_ptr_test" was introduced. The results for a few of the platforms haven't yet been updated, however I've tested mingw/gcc and msvc-10.0 myself, they're OK.
Which changeset are you proposing to merge?
See my commit to trunk, revision 72924. That changeset is the only difference in my code between trunk and release. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On 7/8/2011 1:33 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2011 11:23 AM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
The fix is committed to trunk, I'm waiting for it to get through all the tests and then I'll ask for permission to merge in the release branch.
OK, I'll hold the release waiting for that merge.
I'm requesting permission to merge.
A new test, "non_intrusive_exception_ptr_test" was introduced. The results for a few of the platforms haven't yet been updated, however I've tested mingw/gcc and msvc-10.0 myself, they're OK.
Which changeset are you proposing to merge?
See my commit to trunk, revision 72924. That changeset is the only difference in my code between trunk and release.
OK, please go ahead. Be sure to include the string "Authorized by Eric" in the commit msg. Thanks, -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Hi, recently Edward found a bug on Boost.Chrono with win/intel compiler: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/chrono-Intel-Composer-XE-2011-unable-to-c... I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-47-0-Any-remaining-showstoppers-tp36456... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, Vicente Botet wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Hi,
recently Edward found a bug on Boost.Chrono with win/intel compiler: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/chrono-Intel-Composer-XE-2011-unable-to-c...
I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk?
Adding an extra set of superfluous parens makes the compiler happy? Really? That's whack. <shrug> Looks totally safe to me, but I don't know if Beman is in the packaging phase of the release yet. Beman? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, Vicente Botet wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Hi,
recently Edward found a bug on Boost.Chrono with win/intel compiler: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/chrono-Intel-Composer-XE-2011-unable-to-c...
I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk?
Adding an extra set of superfluous parens makes the compiler happy? Really? That's whack. <shrug>
Looks totally safe to me, but I don't know if Beman is in the packaging phase of the release yet. Beman?
I'm build release candidates now. So unless there is a further delay, it is just too late for this release. --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, Vicente Botet wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I'm still waiting for an OK to merge http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72855
Are there any other merges ready to go that still need permission to merge?
Hi,
recently Edward found a bug on Boost.Chrono with win/intel compiler: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/chrono-Intel-Composer-XE-2011-unable-to-c...
I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk?
Adding an extra set of superfluous parens makes the compiler happy? Really? That's whack. <shrug>
Looks totally safe to me, but I don't know if Beman is in the packaging phase of the release yet. Beman?
I'm build release candidates now. So unless there is a further delay, it is just too late for this release.
If the release is not closed yet, could I or you merge this safe update? Thanks, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-47-0-Any-remaining-showstoppers-tp36456... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk?
Adding an extra set of superfluous parens makes the compiler happy? Really? That's whack. <shrug>
Looks totally safe to me, but I don't know if Beman is in the packaging phase of the release yet. Beman?
I'm build release candidates now. So unless there is a further delay, it is just too late for this release.
If the release is not closed yet, could I or you merge this safe update?
The release is closed except by permission. Yes, please do merge changeset 72938. Just out of curiosity, why does the Intel compiler want the extra set of parentheses? --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I have committed https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72938 on trunk a simple patch. Can I commit after verification on trunk?
Adding an extra set of superfluous parens makes the compiler happy? Really? That's whack.
Looks totally safe to me, but I don't know if Beman is in the packaging phase of the release yet. Beman?
I'm build release candidates now. So unless there is a further delay, it is just too late for this release.
If the release is not closed yet, could I or you merge this safe update?
The release is closed except by permission. Yes, please do merge changeset 72938.
Just out of curiosity, why does the Intel compiler want the extra set of parentheses?
I have no idea why. Edward has requested to people from Intel but I don't have yet a response. I have tried to commit it, but I have no permission. svn ci duration.hpp -m "Merge Intel issue with default bool template initialization #72938" Sending duration.hpp Transmitting file data .svn: Commit failed (details follow): svn: Commit blocked by pre-commit hook (exit code 1) with output: U branches/release/boost/chrono/duration.hpp svn diff duration.hppIndex: duration.hpp =================================================================== --- duration.hpp (revision 72948) +++ duration.hpp (working copy) @@ -89,10 +89,10 @@ template <class Duration, class Rep2, bool = ( - (boost::is_convertible<typename Duration::rep, - typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep2>::type>::value) - && (boost::is_convertible<Rep2, - typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep2>::type>::value) + ((boost::is_convertible<typename Duration::rep, + typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep2>::type>::value)) + && ((boost::is_convertible<Rep2, + typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep2>::type>::value)) ) > struct duration_divide_imp @@ -119,10 +119,10 @@ template <class Rep, class Duration, bool = ( - (boost::is_convertible<typename Duration::rep, - typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep>::type>::value) - && (boost::is_convertible<Rep, - typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep>::type>::value) + ((boost::is_convertible<typename Duration::rep, + typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep>::type>::value)) + && ((boost::is_convertible<Rep, + typename common_type<typename Duration::rep, Rep>::type>::value)) ) > struct duration_divide_imp2 Is this because I have not used the merge command? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-47-0-Any-remaining-showstoppers-tp36456... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Daniel James-3 wrote:
On 9 July 2011 15:36, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I have tried to commit it, but I have no permission.
You need to include 'Authorized by Beman' in the commit message.
Done. svn ci duration.hpp -m "Merge Intel issue with default bool template initialization #72938 - Authorized by Beman" Sending duration.hpp Transmitting file data . Committed revision 72984. Thanks, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-47-0-Any-remaining-showstoppers-tp36456... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Beman Dawes wrote:
Any remaining 1.47.0 showstoppers?
I've just been asked about this one: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5671#comment:4 My gut feeling is to say it's too late, that said, it is a trivial change, John.
participants (9)
-
Adam Merz -
Beman Dawes -
Daniel James -
Emil Dotchevski -
Eric Niebler -
John Maddock -
Neal Becker -
Steven Watanabe -
Vicente Botet