---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:25:29 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [boost-maint][concept_check] Pull request > > On 19 February 2014 10:09, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> wrote: >> ---------------------------------------- >>> 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. > > I'm talking about both at once, so perhaps a bit muddled. We've had > these issues for a long time. I've often thought of suggesting > something similar in the past.
At least we both want to see the situation improve. :) I'd love to see develop and master have the same code, but I'm really not sure how to get there, unfortunately. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-maint
