[typeof][CMT] Could the maintenance team please review and merge a trivial pull request?
Hi, There is one trivial PR hanging for nearly a year now: https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/1 In those 2 lines of code namespace boost was explicitly added in front of enable_if and disable_if. This allows msvc8 to compile the tests when Boost.Test and Boost.TypeOf are both used. Could you please have a look at it? Regards, Adam
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
There is one trivial PR hanging for nearly a year now:
https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/1
In those 2 lines of code namespace boost was explicitly added in front of enable_if and disable_if. This allows msvc8 to compile the tests when Boost.Test and Boost.TypeOf are both used.
Could you please have a look at it?
Adam -- I took a look at it, and I agree, it's a simple change. However, the CMT takes care of libraries that don't have a maintainer. Boost.TypeOf is not one of those - but maybe it should be at this point. -- Marshall
Marshall Clow wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
There is one trivial PR hanging for nearly a year now:
https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/1
In those 2 lines of code namespace boost was explicitly added in front of enable_if and disable_if. This allows msvc8 to compile the tests when Boost.Test and Boost.TypeOf are both used.
Could you please have a look at it?
Adam --
I took a look at it, and I agree, it's a simple change. However, the CMT takes care of libraries that don't have a maintainer.
Boost.TypeOf is not one of those - but maybe it should be at this point.
Indeed it may be the case. Currently there are no procedures at Boost to handle such situation. Maybe there should? As a starting point we should probably define when a library doesn't have a maintainer and think about a procedure of notifying the original maintainer/author and eventually passing the rights to someone else or the CMT. Anyway, this change is very simple, similar to the one recently made in Function (https://github.com/boostorg/function/commit/854f2e8d5db4f5bdd2a23ce71e621b5f...). I also saw that the other PR (https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/2) was merged. Would it be possible to make an exception also in this case? Regards, Adam
I took a look at it, and I agree, it's a simple change. However, the CMT takes care of libraries that don't have a maintainer.
Boost.TypeOf is not one of those - but maybe it should be at this point.
Indeed it may be the case. Currently there are no procedures at Boost to handle such situation. Maybe there should? As a starting point we should probably define when a library doesn't have a maintainer and think about a procedure of notifying the original maintainer/author and eventually passing the rights to someone else or the CMT.
Anyway, this change is very simple, similar to the one recently made in Function (https://github.com/boostorg/function/commit/854f2e8d5db4f5bdd2a23ce71e621b5f...). I also saw that the other PR (https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/2) was merged. Would it be possible to make an exception also in this case?
For trivial changes then IMO the CMT should be able to step in if the maintainer is AWOL for whatever reason (holidays, work commitments etc). It would be a nicety to drop them an email first, and if there's no reply in a reasonable time - say a week or two? - then to go ahead with simple fixes like this. Just my 2c, John.
John Maddock wrote:
I took a look at it, and I agree, it's a simple change. However, the CMT takes care of libraries that don't have a maintainer.
Boost.TypeOf is not one of those - but maybe it should be at this point.
Indeed it may be the case. Currently there are no procedures at Boost to handle such situation. Maybe there should? As a starting point we should probably define when a library doesn't have a maintainer and think about a procedure of notifying the original maintainer/author and eventually passing the rights to someone else or the CMT.
Anyway, this change is very simple, similar to the one recently made in Function (https://github.com/boostorg/function/commit/854f2e8d5db4f5bdd2a23ce71e621b5f...). I also saw that the other PR (https://github.com/boostorg/typeof/pull/2) was merged. Would it be possible to make an exception also in this case?
For trivial changes then IMO the CMT should be able to step in if the maintainer is AWOL for whatever reason (holidays, work commitments etc). It would be a nicety to drop them an email first, and if there's no reply in a reasonable time - say a week or two? - then to go ahead with simple fixes like this.
Another 12 days passed without the response from the maintainer. Could the CMT please reconsider merging the pull request? Regards, Adam
participants (3)
-
Adam Wulkiewicz -
John Maddock -
Marshall Clow