Re: [boost] Boost.Beast state of play

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 12:25, Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On 2020-07-03 12:25, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco

via Boost

...

...

Sent: 2 July 2020 20:25 To: Ville Voutilainen Cc: Vinnie Falco ; boost@lists.boost.org List < boost@lists.boost.org>; Robert Ramey Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Beast state of play

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ville Voutilainen < ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> 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.

Thanks for reaching out. Tests are all passing as of this morning. Because of the concern around stability I have increased the size of the test matrix that I run locally to test all legal combinations of compiler, c++ standard and preprocessor macro selections. (There’s no way this would complete in time with the free CI tools). Latest push of PR 1999 passes all tests with no regressions. I would expect to be merging onto master today once Vinnie has approved the documentation and release notes. Thank you everyone for you patience, and thanks also to Chris for responding so quickly to our exhaustive testing.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- Richard Hodges hodges.r@gmail.com office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212