Re: [boost] [1.45] Beta final schedule
Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to catch up to it?
This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747 Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
On 10/19/2010 2:29 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to catch up to it?
This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far...
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747
Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
Can you comment on whether these are regressions from previous releases? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:29 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to catch up to it?
This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far...
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747
Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
Can you comment on whether these are regressions from previous releases?
May I suggest that the bugs that potentially can hold a release be marked as "Boost 1.45", with "Showstopper" priority, so that a list of such bugs can easily obtained? - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:29 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to catch up to it?
This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far...
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747
Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
Can you comment on whether these are regressions from previous releases?
May I suggest that the bugs that potentially can hold a release be marked as "Boost 1.45", with "Showstopper" priority, so that a list of such bugs can easily obtained?
Anyway, see: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/29 There's one bug re property_tree that was already there, which is probably not a true showstopper. - Volodya
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir@codesourcery.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [boost] [1.45] Beta final schedule
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:29 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
> > Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to > catch up to it? This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far...
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747
Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
Can you comment on whether these are regressions from previous releases?
May I suggest that the bugs that potentially can hold a release be marked as "Boost 1.45", with "Showstopper" priority, so that a list of such bugs can easily obtained?
+1
Anyway, see:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/29
There's one bug re property_tree that was already there, which is probably not a true showstopper.
Or that people needing the correction don't use this release. Vicente
Hi, there is a long standing problem with multi_array and Visual Studio 2010 [1]. Will the patch be part of 1.45? Will there also be some fixes to the multitude of warnings generated when using boost with Visual C++ in x64 projects (gcc seems not to care about most the stuff VC++ complains about)? Most warnings are generated by int <-> size_t conversions. [1] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4539 Regards -chris On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir@codesourcery.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [boost] [1.45] Beta final schedule
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:29 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
>> >> Can we petition to hold up this release for some important bug fixes to >> catch up to it? This idea has some traction with me. ... Ticket numbers?
So far...
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4736 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4698 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4747
Less important, but would remove more yellow from the regression table... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4735
Can you comment on whether these are regressions from previous releases?
May I suggest that the bugs that potentially can hold a release be marked as "Boost 1.45", with "Showstopper" priority, so that a list of such bugs can easily obtained?
+1
Anyway, see:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/29
There's one bug re property_tree that was already there, which is probably not a true showstopper.
Or that people needing the correction don't use this release.
Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Christopher Lux wrote:
there is a long standing problem with multi_array and Visual Studio 2010 [1]. Will the patch be part of 1.45?
Will there also be some fixes to the multitude of warnings generated when using boost with Visual C++ in x64 projects (gcc seems not to care about most the stuff VC++ complains about)? Most warnings are generated by int <-> size_t conversions.
I haven't followed multi_array lately, but the last merge from trunk to release was in 2007 (when I last checked mid of this year), even so there have been fixes on trunk. So before applying this patch, merging the current trunk to release might be a good idea. I don't think there was any specific reason (or problem) why multi_array changes weren't merged to release, except probably lack of time. In case the trunk version of multi_array has been merged to release in the meantime, please ignore this message. Regards, Thomas
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
Christopher Lux wrote:
there is a long standing problem with multi_array and Visual Studio 2010 [1]. Will the patch be part of 1.45?
Will there also be some fixes to the multitude of warnings generated when using boost with Visual C++ in x64 projects (gcc seems not to care about most the stuff VC++ complains about)? Most warnings are generated by int <-> size_t conversions.
I haven't followed multi_array lately, but the last merge from trunk to release was in 2007 (when I last checked mid of this year), even so there have been fixes on trunk. So before applying this patch, merging the current trunk to release might be a good idea. I don't think there was any specific reason (or problem) why multi_array changes weren't merged to release, except probably lack of time.
In case the trunk version of multi_array has been merged to release in the meantime, please ignore this message.
That should have been merged a couple of weeks ago. Please see if the problems are still there. -- Jeremiah Willcock
Jeremiah Willcock wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
In case the trunk version of multi_array has been merged to release in the meantime, please ignore this message.
That should have been merged a couple of weeks ago. Please see if the problems are still there.
I checked it. You are right. Sorry for the noise. Regards, Thomas
On 10/19/2010 10:48 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
May I suggest that the bugs that potentially can hold a release be marked as "Boost 1.45", with "Showstopper" priority, so that a list of such bugs can easily obtained?
- Volodya
I see you've gone through and done this. Thanks, Volodya. Incidentally, I just changed the 1.45 Showstopper query: it wasn't showing "status=assigned" bugs. Now, #4751 appears in the results, as it should. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (7)
-
Christopher Lux -
Eric Niebler -
Jeremiah Willcock -
Jim Bell -
Thomas Klimpel -
vicente.botet -
Vladimir Prus