On 9/26/12 5:32 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > >> From: Rob Weir > ... > >>> I am afraid that if we revert the boost update we will never get the >>> issues >> fixed and >>> perhaps this is the motivation we need to resolve the stlport situation. >>> >>> The stlport situation is basically that we are using 3 outdated versions >> and it >>> doesn't support clang. >>> >> >> I'm not saying updating is a bad thing. My complaint is that it broke >> the build. Doing it on a branch would have been better. >> > > The build was tested in MacOS X, Linux and Windows and FreeBSD > before committing. I won't be starting a branch to fix the boost update > because there is nothing to fix in the boost update. > > >> We have a lot of components that could be updating. > > Really? Feel free to start a wiki page so we can evaluate them, and > prioritize them. At this time I only have interest on things that can > help the clang port. > > The boost update is/was necessary: Linux/BSD builds are using the > system boost (usually more updated than the one we currently have) > and that means we can't detect if something doesn't work until it's too > late. The real reason for the update though, is clang. Without a clang > port AOO is dead in MacOSX and eventually in FreeBSD too.
nobody said it is not important, we talk here about the way to achieve in the end the same goal. Ask Armin how often he has merged the trunk back in his aw080 branch and continue the work on the branch until it is ready for trunk. The boost update as it is seems to be not ready enough and breaks other important things, in this case debug support (which is of course important for developers) on Windows. Please explain where exactly your problem is to do the work on a branch. Juergen > >> just check in upgrades to the trunk and pray for the best? I hope > >> not. >> > > We should *always* pray for the best. > > Pedro. >
