Re: [boost] [range] Permission to merge to the Release branch
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
Beman,
I am seeking permission to merge the trunk version of Boost.Range into the release branch. The regression test results have not detected new regressions, however there are a number of the new features that are not passing unit tests on several compilers. Since the new features would not be usable if I did not merge my opinion is that it is worth merging to allow the use of the newer features on more compliant compilers. In the meantime I can seek to improve the support of adaptors and algorithms on the less capable compilers.
Go ahead and merge. For the tests that are expected to fail (because of older compilers, or whatever), please mark them up as expected failures. Ask if you need help with the markup.
Of course, I respect that being a newbie to the Boost development and release process that I may not be making the most informed judgement and hence I respectfully seek your guidance.
It is best to ask such questions on the main list. That allows others to comment, and if I'm not available one of the other release managers can reply. Thanks, --Beman
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Beman Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
Beman,
I am seeking permission to merge the trunk version of Boost.Range into the release branch. The regression test results have not detected new regressions, however there are a number of the new features that are not passing unit tests on several compilers. Since the new features would not be usable if I did not merge my opinion is that it is worth merging to allow the use of the newer features on more compliant compilers. In the meantime I can seek to improve the support of adaptors and algorithms on the less capable compilers.
Go ahead and merge. For the tests that are expected to fail (because of older compilers, or whatever), please mark them up as expected failures. Ask if you need help with the markup.
Will this merge cause failures because of the name conflicts with string_algo? Also, please see my earlier email about needing to apply a separate patch to remove the Boost.Range algorithms from <boost/detail/algorithm.hpp>. -- Jeremiah Willcock
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
The regression test results have not detected new regressions, however there are a number of the new features that are not passing unit tests on several compilers. Since the new features would not be usable if I did not merge my opinion is that it is worth merging to allow the use of the newer features on more compliant compilers. In the meantime I can seek to improve the support of adaptors and algorithms on the less capable compilers.
A few of the new tests are failing on both VC10 and GCC 4.4 in c++0x mode due to ambiguities between boost::next and std::next, which can be fixed by qualifying the calls. I've attached a patch to https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3593 . -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--range--Permission-to-merge-to-the-Release-branc... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
Jeremiah Willcock -
Richard Webb