Hi, I'm the main developer of Kig [1]. I have just committed the code for python scripting to the CVS repository, but I'm receiving bug reports from people not able to compile the new code because of the small typename problem that was fixed in Boost.Python some time ago [2] ( the fix is in CVS, right ? ). Are there any plans to release a fixed version of Boost.Python any time soon, and what is the policy on Boost.Python releases in general ? thanks domi Footnotes: [1] http://edu.kde.org/kig [2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-May/003889.html and http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-May/003896.html
Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese@student.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
Hi,
I'm the main developer of Kig [1]. I have just committed the code for python scripting to the CVS repository
Using Boost.Python? Cool!
but I'm receiving bug reports from people not able to compile the new code because of the small typename problem that was fixed in Boost.Python some time ago [2] ( the fix is in CVS, right ? ).
Yes.
Are there any plans to release a fixed version of Boost.Python any time soon
No specific plans, no.
and what is the policy on Boost.Python releases in general ?
In general, they are released when all of Boost is ready. I think it would be a *really* good idea for Boost to do at least one minor version release shortly after any major version release. Now that we have a reasonable testing strategy it should be relatively easy. Boost 1.30.0 went out with several bugs IIRC.
thanks domi
Footnotes: [1] http://edu.kde.org/kig
[2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-May/003889.html and http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-May/003896.html
Until we get our act together, I would suggest you supply people with a Boost patch. Use "BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME" instead of "typename" so you don't break VC6. Sorry, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams writes:
Hi,
I'm the main developer of Kig [1]. I have just committed the code for python scripting to the CVS repository
Using Boost.Python? Cool!
Yups, I was going to post something separately about including it on the "projects using boost.python" page if you want, but well, erm.. if you want, feel free to include it on that page.. :) ( There's no released version with the scripting yet, but I consider the code itself to be pretty stable.. ) If you need more information, feel free to ask.
Are there any plans to release a fixed version of Boost.Python any time soon
No specific plans, no.
and what is the policy on Boost.Python releases in general ?
In general, they are released when all of Boost is ready. I think it would be a *really* good idea for Boost to do at least one minor version release shortly after any major version release. Now that we have a reasonable testing strategy it should be relatively easy. Boost 1.30.0 went out with several bugs IIRC.
Until we get our act together, I would suggest you supply people with a Boost patch. Use "BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME" instead of "typename" so you don't break VC6. Sorry,
A fixed release would be great indeed. In the mean time, I'm going to provide the patch as you suggest, although it's far from a perfect solution of course.. Thanks a lot domi
Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese@student.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
In general, they are released when all of Boost is ready. I think it would be a *really* good idea for Boost to do at least one minor version release shortly after any major version release. Now that we have a reasonable testing strategy it should be relatively easy. Boost 1.30.0 went out with several bugs IIRC.
Until we get our act together, I would suggest you supply people with a Boost patch. Use "BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME" instead of "typename" so you don't break VC6. Sorry,
A fixed release would be great indeed. In the mean time, I'm going to provide the patch as you suggest, although it's far from a perfect solution of course..
What does everybody think about doing a 1.30.1 release "RSN?" I don't think there's much to it, unless people have been checking things into the 1.30 branch unintentionally. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams writes:
Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese@student.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
In general, they are released when all of Boost is ready. I think it would be a *really* good idea for Boost to do at least one minor version release shortly after any major version release. Now that we have a reasonable testing strategy it should be relatively easy. Boost 1.30.0 went out with several bugs IIRC.
Until we get our act together, I would suggest you supply people with a Boost patch. Use "BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME" instead of "typename" so you don't break VC6. Sorry,
A fixed release would be great indeed. In the mean time, I'm going to provide the patch as you suggest, although it's far from a perfect solution of course..
What does everybody think about doing a 1.30.1 release "RSN?"
I don't think there's much to it, unless people have been checking things into the 1.30 branch unintentionally.
If I might ask another thing: Would it be possible to include this patch too in the new release ? http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-April/003804.html thanks domi
Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese@student.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
If I might ask another thing: Would it be possible to include this patch too in the new release ? http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-April/003804.html
Your patch is backwards, but in any case, it's already in the CVS trunk and I just applied it to RC_1_30_0. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:26:43 +0200, David Abrahams wrote:
What does everybody think about doing a 1.30.1 release "RSN?"
I think it's too late, let's go for a 1.31.0. I think that we'll hear about problems with the 1.31.0 really soon after release and probably a 1.31.1 can follow shortly after. For 1.30.0, we IMHO missed the opportunity do to a 1.30.1 without lots of pain/work. As Beman already said there is too much in CVS to "backport" it to a 1.30.1. The question is, whether we learn from it for a 1.31.1 :) My 2 cents... Regards, Daniel
Daniel Frey <d.frey@gmx.de> writes:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:26:43 +0200, David Abrahams wrote:
What does everybody think about doing a 1.30.1 release "RSN?"
I think it's too late, let's go for a 1.31.0. I think that we'll hear about problems with the 1.31.0 really soon after release and probably a 1.31.1 can follow shortly after. For 1.30.0, we IMHO missed the opportunity do to a 1.30.1 without lots of pain/work. As Beman already said there is too much in CVS to "backport" it to a 1.30.1. The question is, whether we learn from it for a 1.31.1 :)
I wouldn't dream of backporting everything we've done since 1.30.0. That would be pointless. There are just a few errors which prevent major portions of 1.30.0 from compiling. I backported all the important post-1.30.0 fixes immediately after hearing about them, but I'm not sure everyone else did. Note that 1.31.0 is going to be a code-breaking release for anyone who uses iterator adaptors, so it might be important for them to get a working 1.30.1. But anyway, I don't care that much. A .1 release is more work, and I'm all for avoiding work. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams writes:
I wouldn't dream of backporting everything we've done since 1.30.0. That would be pointless. There are just a few errors which prevent major portions of 1.30.0 from compiling. I backported all the important post-1.30.0 fixes immediately after hearing about them, but I'm not sure everyone else did.
Note that 1.31.0 is going to be a code-breaking release for anyone who uses iterator adaptors, so it might be important for them to get a working 1.30.1.
But anyway, I don't care that much. A .1 release is more work, and I'm all for avoiding work.
Could you give an estimate of when 1.31.0 will be released, please ? thanks domi
participants (3)
-
Daniel Frey -
David Abrahams -
Dominique Devriese