From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-03 10:24:54
On 2020-07-03 12:25, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via Boost
>> Sent: 2 July 2020 20:25
>> To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
>> Cc: Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]>; boost_at_[hidden] List <boost_at_[hidden]>;
> Robert
>> Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Beast state of play
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 110%
>>
>> (Note that 112% is the correct number)
>>
>>> "WG21 politics" as you call them do not constitute a reason to release
>>> a possibly low-quality boost.
>>
>> That is certainly true, but since Asio's changes are beyond my control it is important for Beast
> to be up-
>> to-date with respect to those changes in the same release, not one release later.
>
> All Boost releases risk causing someone trouble (and one way or another most do).
>
> IMO Vinnie has made a good enough case for *this issue* on *this release*.
Vinnie's case was "because of WG21 politics". This is not a valid reason
to compromise Boost quality, I totally agree with Ville on this. I find
it somewhat disturbing that maintainers of a popular Boost library find
that acceptable. Boost users experience should have a priority over WG21.
Richard, however, presented a different case, that is:
- Only a single test case is broken in a single configuration.
- The test uses modern C++ features, which are expected to be rather
unstable at this point.
- There is a high chance that Chris will fix the problem before the release.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, in the previous Boost release Boost.Beast had
a problem in the same area, so basically Boost.Beast is not worse than
the previous release. This is a more compelling case. I'd like to ask
Richard to let us know if and when this problem gets resolved.