[release] Boost 1.75.0 Release Candidate 1

Marshall Clow

3 Dec 2020 3 Dec '20

2:54 p.m.

[release] Boost 1.75.0 Release Candidate 1 The first release candidates for the 1.75.0 release are now available at: https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/ The SHA256 checksums are as follows: caf36d7c13b3d8ce62282a64a695113945a13b0f1796a45160726d04295f95ed boost_1_75_0_rc1.zip aeb26f80e80945e82ee93e5939baebdca47b9dee80a07d3144be1e1a6a66dd6a boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.gz 953db31e016db7bb207f11432bef7df100516eeb746843fa0486a222e3fd49cb boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.bz2 3a8b314871646e7404886736273c053278ba71b11347f72d4751411d65d6d1a5 boost_1_75_0_rc1.7z As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Release managers

Show replies by date

Matt Borland

3 Dec 3 Dec

4:51 p.m.

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 06:54 -0800, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:

...

As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

-- The Release managers

Successfully builds for cxxstd=03,11,14,17,and 20 on Fedora 33 using gcc 10.2.1. Matt

Marshall Clow

4:54 p.m.

On Dec 3, 2020, at 6:54 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

[release] Boost 1.75.0 Release Candidate 1

The first release candidates for the 1.75.0 release are now available at:

<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/ https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/>

The SHA256 checksums are as follows:

caf36d7c13b3d8ce62282a64a695113945a13b0f1796a45160726d04295f95ed boost_1_75_0_rc1.zip aeb26f80e80945e82ee93e5939baebdca47b9dee80a07d3144be1e1a6a66dd6a boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.gz 953db31e016db7bb207f11432bef7df100516eeb746843fa0486a222e3fd49cb boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.bz2 3a8b314871646e7404886736273c053278ba71b11347f72d4751411d65d6d1a5 boost_1_75_0_rc1.7z

As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

Successfully built the libraries on Mac OS 10.15.7 with Apple clang version 11.0.3 (clang-1103.0.32.62) for cxxstd=03,11,14,17,and 2a — Marshall

Marshall Clow

5:08 p.m.

On Dec 3, 2020, at 6:54 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

Successfully built the libraries on ubuntu 18.04 with: * gcc 7.5.0 for cxxstd=03,11,14,1z * A fairly recent clang (built from source) for cxxstd=03,11,14,17,and 2a — Marshall

Tom Kent

10:19 p.m.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

[release] Boost 1.75.0 Release Candidate 1

The first release candidates for the 1.75.0 release are now available at:

https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/

The SHA256 checksums are as follows:

caf36d7c13b3d8ce62282a64a695113945a13b0f1796a45160726d04295f95ed boost_1_75_0_rc1.zip aeb26f80e80945e82ee93e5939baebdca47b9dee80a07d3144be1e1a6a66dd6a boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.gz 953db31e016db7bb207f11432bef7df100516eeb746843fa0486a222e3fd49cb boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.bz2 3a8b314871646e7404886736273c053278ba71b11347f72d4751411d65d6d1a5 boost_1_75_0_rc1.7z

As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

-- The Release managers

Looks good on Windows/Visual Studio toolset arch compile Link Execute msvc-10.0 32 X X X msvc-10.0 64 X X X msvc-11.0 32 X X X msvc-11.0 64 X X X msvc-12.0 32 X X X msvc-12.0 64 X X X msvc-14.0 32 X X X msvc-14.0 64 X X X msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X msvc-14.2 32 X X X msvc-14.2 64 X X X Compile means that the b2 command completed without errors Link means that visual studio was able to link a sample executable to a library (libboost_thread-vcXXX-mt[-gd]-1_XX.lib) generated Execute means that the linked program executed without errors. Full build logs can be found here: https://gist.github.com/teeks99/1ce92a3d1d36b6d71ed5a1e60fe3574f Tom

Edward Diener

4 Dec 4 Dec

11:10 p.m.

On 12/3/2020 9:54 AM, Marshall Clow via Boost-users wrote:

...

[release] Boost 1.75.0 Release Candidate 1

The first release candidates for the 1.75.0 release are now available at:

<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/ https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/>

The SHA256 checksums are as follows:

caf36d7c13b3d8ce62282a64a695113945a13b0f1796a45160726d04295f95ed boost_1_75_0_rc1.zip aeb26f80e80945e82ee93e5939baebdca47b9dee80a07d3144be1e1a6a66dd6a boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.gz 953db31e016db7bb207f11432bef7df100516eeb746843fa0486a222e3fd49cb boost_1_75_0_rc1.tar.bz2 3a8b314871646e7404886736273c053278ba71b11347f72d4751411d65d6d1a5 boost_1_75_0_rc1.7z

As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

Look at the documentation from index.html I find: 1) The top says "Release 1.74.0" instead of "Release 1.75.0" 2) The HOF link does not go to the doc but instead goes to a page where the user has to click a link that says "index.html" in order to go to the doc. I think it should be setup so that the HOF link goes directly to the HOF doc. 3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

Andrey Semashev

5 Dec 5 Dec

1:33 p.m.

On December 5, 2020 2:11:16 AM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

As long as we package docs for offline reading, the link should point to the packaged Boost.Build docs.

Glen Fernandes

1:59 p.m.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 8:33 AM Andrey Semashev wrote:

...

On December 5, 2020 2:11:16 AM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...
3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

As long as we package docs for offline reading, the link should point to the packaged Boost.Build docs.

Yes, it should. https://github.com/boostorg/boost/commit/45cf0c146e0b57a1984452bfdff84245547... I'll see if we can still get it into this release. Glen

Edward Diener

12 Dec 12 Dec

2:52 a.m.

On 12/5/2020 8:59 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 8:33 AM Andrey Semashev wrote:

...
On December 5, 2020 2:11:16 AM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...
3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

As long as we package docs for offline reading, the link should point to the packaged Boost.Build docs.

Yes, it should. https://github.com/boostorg/boost/commit/45cf0c146e0b57a1984452bfdff84245547...

I'll see if we can still get it into this release.

This was never fixed in the 1.75 release. Also the documentation page ( index.html ) says at the top "Release 1.74.0" and not "Release 1.75.0", which was one of the other issues I originally reported. I do not mean this as a criticism, since I know how hard the release managers have worked to get this release out. But can we perhaps get the Boost Build link to actually point to the Boost.Build documentation when we release Boost, since this "bug" when creating the release documentation has existed more or less forever ?

Glen Fernandes

3 a.m.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:52 PM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

On 12/5/2020 8:59 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 8:33 AM Andrey Semashev wrote:

...
On December 5, 2020 2:11:16 AM Edward Diener wrote:

...
3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

As long as we package docs for offline reading, the link should point to the packaged Boost.Build docs.

Yes, it should. https://github.com/boostorg/boost/commit/45cf0c146e0b57a1984452bfdff84245547...

I'll see if we can still get it into this release.

This was never fixed in the 1.75 release.

That's because 5th december was too late to merge to master to get it into the release.

...

I do not mean this as a criticism, since I know how hard the release managers have worked to get this release out. But can we perhaps get the Boost Build link to actually point to the Boost.Build documentation when we release Boost,

If you're part of "we", you are free to submit pull requests to fix any issue in any part of Boost (website, documentation, etc.). This is how "we" fix anything. The link above was broken by a maintainer of Boost.Build when they moved the documentation from one place to a new place. Did you try contacting this maintainer asking them to fix it? Glen

Edward Diener

13 Dec 13 Dec

1:16 a.m.

On 12/11/2020 10:00 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:52 PM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...
On 12/5/2020 8:59 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 8:33 AM Andrey Semashev wrote:

...
On December 5, 2020 2:11:16 AM Edward Diener wrote:

...
3) The Boost.Build tool link goes to a "File not found" page. It has been this way forever. Can we not fix this so that the link goes to the online page at https://boostorg.github.io/build/ ?

As long as we package docs for offline reading, the link should point to the packaged Boost.Build docs.

Yes, it should. https://github.com/boostorg/boost/commit/45cf0c146e0b57a1984452bfdff84245547...

I'll see if we can still get it into this release.

This was never fixed in the 1.75 release.

That's because 5th december was too late to merge to master to get it into the release.

...
I do not mean this as a criticism, since I know how hard the release managers have worked to get this release out. But can we perhaps get the Boost Build link to actually point to the Boost.Build documentation when we release Boost,

If you're part of "we", you are free to submit pull requests to fix any issue in any part of Boost (website, documentation, etc.). This is how "we" fix anything.

The link above was broken by a maintainer of Boost.Build when they moved the documentation from one place to a new place. Did you try contacting this maintainer asking them to fix it?

I submitted a PR (https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/683) in Boost.Build to fix the issue. I also created an issue for the HOF doc, if the HOF maintainer wants to fix it so that the getting the doc is not a two-step process of clicking an extra index.html link. The final issue was that the index.html for the release showed 1.74 rather than 1.75. This seems to be generated from some sort of template where '{{version}}' is supposed to be plugged in by the correct version, but evidently did not work properly. Maybe someone who knows how this is supposed to work, but evidently did not, can look at it.

Glen Fernandes

3:34 a.m.

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 8:16 PM Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

The final issue was that the index.html for the release showed 1.74 rather than 1.75. This seems to be generated from some sort of template where '{{version}}' is supposed to be plugged in by the correct version, but evidently did not work properly. Maybe someone who knows how this is supposed to work, but evidently did not, can look at it.

Sounds like generate.php?page=index.html&version=<version> was invoked with the wrong <version> . I'll take a look and see what I can find. Glen

1428

Age (days ago)

1438

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

11 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

Andrey Semashev
Edward Diener
Glen Fernandes
Marshall Clow
Matt Borland
Tom Kent