[parameter][1.73] Library broken and unattended. Regressions and unmerged PR.
Hi, I'd like to draw attention to Boost.Parameter state. Since 1.71, it seems to be broken as described in these issues: https://github.com/boostorg/parameter/issues/91 https://github.com/boostorg/parameter/issues/97 The latter one was actually reported to me in Boost.Log, as this Boost.Parameter bug affected its users in a rather nasty way (the user's code silently compiles and has the wrong effect). For the latter issue I created a PR with a fix: https://github.com/boostorg/parameter/pull/99 which got no reply so far. The person who assumed Boost.Parameter maintenance and made the problematic changes, Cromwell D. Enage, is not responding, so the library is basically broken and unmaintained. I really don't want 1.73 to be released with a bug like the one affected Boost.Log, so I would appreciate if someone with merge permissions could merge my PR. If not, I will be forced to fork the library internally in Boost.Log for 1.73 (which I also really don't want to do). This would take care of my immediate concern. The other issue seems to be affecting users as well and I don't have the solution for it. Given that the library is unmaintained, it might be better to: 1. Move the current state of develop to a separate branch. 2. Revert master and develop to a state prior to Cromwell's commits that went into 1.71 (i.e. to the 1.70 state). This should take care of the Boost.Log issue as well, so it would be fine with me as well. Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 7:18 PM Andrey Semashev wrote:
The other issue seems to be affecting users as well and I don't have the solution for it. Given that the library is unmaintained, it might be better to:
1. Move the current state of develop to a separate branch. 2. Revert master and develop to a state prior to Cromwell's commits that went into 1.71 (i.e. to the 1.70 state).
This should take care of the Boost.Log issue as well, so it would be fine with me as well.
Andrey, I'm in favor of this. If there are no objects, this is what I think we should do. Glen
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM I wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 7:18 PM Andrey Semashev wrote:
The other issue seems to be affecting users as well and I don't have the solution for it. Given that the library is unmaintained, it might be better to:
1. Move the current state of develop to a separate branch. 2. Revert master and develop to a state prior to Cromwell's commits that went into 1.71 (i.e. to the 1.70 state).
This should take care of the Boost.Log issue as well, so it would be fine with me as well.
Andrey, I'm in favor of this. If there are no objects, this is what I think we should do.
objections* Glen
participants (2)
-
Andrey Semashev
-
Glen Fernandes