On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 20:10, Michael Caisse via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 11/23/19 06:42, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 17:37, Michael Caisse via Boost
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In GIL, we'd like to merge a set of seven commits with minor and
> > documentation changes  that we believe do not require request
> > for permission.
> Correct. Merge away.
> > Can we merge the removal of the boost/gil/version.hpp as post-beta merge now?
> Please feel free to merge. I would like to see mention of it in the
> release notes for GIL.
Thanks for the feedback. If this merge contains changes that can be
problematic, I can split it up and get the bugfix "# [github_issue 206]
compile-time disabled test not correctly handled by junit log" alone
Concerning the RTTI, I do not know about any runners. Maybe somebody has
The change itself forwards the creation of the error message/diagnostic
to boost::exception, now unconditionally to the RTTI support. The error
message is created by "boost::diagnostic_information" in
There I can see several #ifndef BOOST_NO_RTTI / #endif and my
understanding is that boost::exception library already handles the
NO_RTTI case better than boost.test.
All in all I believe this change is safe.
Let me know what you think. If this is too risky, let me know if I can
merge the other bugfix.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 2:54 PM Vinnie Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
A Slack user also reports this:
> was playing around with 1.72 beta asio, and it looks like this
> incorrectly concludes that recent msvc with /std:c++1 has
> no ret type deduction:
> https://github.com/boostorg/asio/blob/develop/include/boost/asio/detail/config.hpp#L318 > the existing test i believe would require msvc to run with /Zc:__cplusplus
> which is still not the default. a fix that works on my end is adding
> # elif defined(__cpp_return_type_deduction) && __cpp_return_type_deduction >= 201304
> # define ASIO_HAS_RETURN_TYPE_DEDUCTION 1
> #if !defined(BOOST_ASIO_HAS_RETURN_TYPE_DEDUCTION)
We should probably fix this along with the other problem I mentioned earlier.
In addition to the above I'd like to merge fixes and additional test
cases in test directory but AFAIU I don't need a permission for that so
I didn't include it in the diff above for your convenience.
I also have a question regarding the policy. In the section:
*"**Documentation fixes and other minor changes not affecting code.**"*,
the policy states:
/> //Criteria: Changes not requiring regression testing and unlikely to
impact other libraries. Procedure: Merges to branches/release are OK,
after fix applied to trunk, and do not require a release manager's
> I also have a question regarding the policy. In the section:
> *"**Documentation fixes and other minor changes not affecting code.**"*,
> the policy states:
> /> //Criteria: Changes not requiring regression testing and unlikely to
> impact other libraries. Procedure: Merges to branches/release are OK,
> after fix applied to trunk, and do not require a release manager's
> AFAIK no other library depends on Geometry (see:
> https://pdimov.github.io/boostdep-report/boost-1.71.0/geometry.html > *"Reverse dependencies"* section at the bottom). Does it mean we do not
> have to ask for permission for fixes like the ones above?
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:43 AM Vinnie Falco <[hidden email]>
> > 1. A syntax error persists
> boostorg/asio was just updated today, I see the possible fix for this
> error and I am testing it on Appveyor now.
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:42 AM Vinnie Falco <[hidden email]>
> > The compilation error with asio is fixed. Still no asio release notes.
> Unfortunately, the asio fix is only in the develop branch. The master
> branch is still broken, and there are still no release notes.
Looks like they're there now.
Is your problem fixed?