---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:24:16 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request > > On 19 February 2014 09:08, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:50:14 +0000 >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request >>> >>> On 19 February 2014 06:46, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we (Boost) are committed to merging Stephen's changes to master. >>> >>> We're not really, he made them after being asked not to. It's up to >>> individual libraries' maintainers whether they want to use them. IMO >>> what we should do with modules where no one is dealing with changes on >>> develop (all of them, not just Stephen Kelly's) is revert them in >>> develop and create feature branches so that we can get master and >>> develop in sync, but keep a record of the outstanding changes. >> >> I'd rather take a less heavy handed approach and determine if the changes in >> develop are easily merged to master and avoid having the changes potentially >> get lost. > > It's not just a case of whether they can be merged or not. Some are > large and potentially disruptive to fairly arcane but stable code. > Some changes remove headers which is problematic, even if they are in > 'detail' directories. And there are people still using old compilers > who rely on the support for them.
I was talking about all changes on develop that aren't on master, did you think I was talking about Stephen's changes exclusively? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-maint
