[iostreams] Iostreams status?
What is the status of Boost.Iostreams? I've noticed: 1) The original author does not seem to be available. 2) Significant portions of the documentation remain incomplete. 3) Asynchronous streams and other issues brought up during review appear to be incomplete. Is anyone still working on this library? Is it being proposed for standardization? Are there any other planned Boost libraries that do a similar thing to this one?
1) The original author does not seem to be available. 2) Significant portions of the documentation remain incomplete. 3) Asynchronous streams and other issues brought up during review appear to be incomplete.
Yeah I raised this issue about 1-2 months ago and no one bothered answering my email, I guess everyone simply don't know what's going on or at least don't know more that what you already mentioned. I think someone will have to stand up and say something like "ok I'll take care of this library from now". At the moment I really can't do it but *maybe* after I'm done with another library I might take a look at what needs to be done. Is anyone still working on this library? I'm guessing only bugfixes. Is it being proposed for standardization? Doubt it, but I don't know. Are there any other planned Boost libraries that do a similar thing to
this one?
What exactly do you mean by similar ? Anyway I think the answer is no :) Philippe
Philippe Vaucher wrote:
1) The original author does not seem to be available. 2) Significant portions of the documentation remain incomplete. 3) Asynchronous streams and other issues brought up during review appear to be incomplete.
Yeah I raised this issue about 1-2 months ago and no one bothered answering my email, I guess everyone simply don't know what's going on or at least don't know more that what you already mentioned.
Sorry, sometimes it's hard to keep up with this list let alone answer.
I think someone will have to stand up and say something like "ok I'll take care of this library from now". At the moment I really can't do it but *maybe* after I'm done with another library I might take a look at what needs to be done.
Yes, we need one or more volunteers to look after the library.
Is anyone still working on this library?
No, although we did get a recent 1.34 patch from a volunteer.
I'm guessing only bugfixes.
Is it being proposed for standardization?
Doubt it, but I don't know.
No, not at this point.
Are there any other planned Boost libraries that do a similar thing to
this one?
What exactly do you mean by similar ? Anyway I think the answer is no :)
There are no libraries like it that I'm aware of. Jeff
on Tue May 22 2007, "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronrabiddog51-AT-aaronwl.com> wrote:
What is the status of Boost.Iostreams?
I've noticed:
1) The original author does not seem to be available. 2) Significant portions of the documentation remain incomplete. 3) Asynchronous streams and other issues brought up during review appear to be incomplete.
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
on Tue May 22 2007, "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronrabiddog51-AT-aaronwl.com> wrote:
What is the status of Boost.Iostreams?
I've noticed:
1) The original author does not seem to be available. 2) Significant portions of the documentation remain incomplete. 3) Asynchronous streams and other issues brought up during review appear to be incomplete.
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks.
Wait, stop this is a very bad idea. At first we need to get Kim's changes in. For 1.34.1 I am unlikely to accept anything beyond that. Jonathan, Please consult with Kim before you make changes and don't change the RC_1_34_0 branch without my permission. Thanks Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
At 5:21 PM -0400 5/22/07, David Abrahams wrote:
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks.
Hopefully ticket #971 will get resolved first. http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/971
Kim Barrett wrote:
At 5:21 PM -0400 5/22/07, David Abrahams wrote:
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks.
Hopefully ticket #971 will get resolved first.
Kim, IIUC the patch is ready to go. Could you please apply it to RC_1_34_0? Thanks Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
At 8:51 PM -0700 5/22/07, Thomas Witt wrote:
Kim Barrett wrote:
At 5:21 PM -0400 5/22/07, David Abrahams wrote:
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks.
Hopefully ticket #971 will get resolved first.
Kim, IIUC the patch is ready to go. Could you please apply it to RC_1_34_0?
Both patches (for RC_1_34_0 and HEAD) are ready to go. John previously offered to do the actual application, since I don't have commit privileges. I've cc'd him directly to increase the chances of getting his attention.
Kim Barrett wrote:
At 8:51 PM -0700 5/22/07, Thomas Witt wrote:
Kim Barrett wrote:
At 5:21 PM -0400 5/22/07, David Abrahams wrote:
Is anyone still working on this library?
I've contacted Jonathan Turkanis and he said he'd be dealing with the outstanding tickets over the next 2 weeks.
Hopefully ticket #971 will get resolved first.
Kim, IIUC the patch is ready to go. Could you please apply it to RC_1_34_0?
Both patches (for RC_1_34_0 and HEAD) are ready to go. John previously offered to do the actual application, since I don't have commit privileges. I've cc'd him directly to increase the chances of getting his attention.
I've applied the patch to the 1.34 branch, applying the patch to cvs HEAD gives me some errors: $ patch -p1 -i kab*.patch <snip...> patching file libs/iostreams/doc/tree/tree.css Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file libs/iostreams/doc/tree/tree.css.rej <snip...> patching file libs/iostreams/test/putback_test.hpp Hunk #2 FAILED at 11. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file libs/iostreams/test/putback_test.hpp.rej Maybe if you just let me have the "correct" versions of those two files, and I'll retest HEAD and commit if it's OK? I've marked ticket 971 as fixed, but there appear to be at least two other tickets on the same issue: can you look at these and confirm if they've been fixed or not? They are: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/953 and http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/955 At the same time there are quite a few open tickets from 1.33.1 relating to the iostreams library, should someone want to try and fix them - but probably not for 1.34.1 :-)
At 9:36 AM +0100 5/23/07, John Maddock wrote:
I've applied the patch to the 1.34 branch, applying the patch to cvs HEAD gives me some errors:
$ patch -p1 -i kab*.patch
I think your problem is right there. There were two patch files in the tarball: kab-iostreams-RC_1_34_0.patch -- apply this to a sandbox that is on the RC_1_34_0 branch kab-iostreams-trunk.patch -- apply this to a sandbox that is on HEAD. Don't try to apply both patches to one place.
At 9:27 AM +0100 5/24/07, John Maddock wrote:
Kim Barrett wrote:
At 9:36 AM +0100 5/23/07, John Maddock wrote:
I've applied the patch to the 1.34 branch, applying the patch to cvs HEAD gives me some errors:
$ patch -p1 -i kab*.patch
I think your problem is right there. There were two patch files in the tarball:
kab-iostreams-RC_1_34_0.patch -- apply this to a sandbox that is on the RC_1_34_0 branch
kab-iostreams-trunk.patch -- apply this to a sandbox that is on HEAD.
Don't try to apply both patches to one place.
I wasn't, I extracted each file separately to different Boost trees. Only the trunk patch is present, but it still fails with the messages shown.
Hm. The trunk patch applies cleanly for me, both against the dated tree I created it against and against a fresh cvs tree from a few minutes ago. But I have a suspicion of what the problem might be. You performed tests against various windows compilers and cygwin-gcc. I'm going to guess that you are applying the patch on a windows machine, either under windows or under cygwin. I both developed the patch and just verified that it applied cleanly on linux. The two files that failed to patch cleanly for you both have RC_1_34_0 branch changes since HEAD that are being back ported to HEAD. Among the changes for both of these files are newline cleanups: http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/iostreams/doc/tree/tree.cs... see version 1.4.4.1 http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/iostreams/test/putback_tes... see version 1.4.4.1 I suspect some confusion in the patch creation / application process around the different newline representations is biting us here. I'm attaching a tarball containing the two files in question, post patch.
participants (7)
-
Aaron W. LaFramboise -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
John Maddock -
Kim Barrett -
Philippe Vaucher -
Thomas Witt