On 18/04/2015 13:37, Rob Stewart wrote:

On April 17, 2015 7:56:07 PM EDT, Michael Caisse wrote:

...

On 04/17/2015 01:58 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

Release 1.58.0 of the Boost C++ Libraries is now available.

<snip>

...

Thanks,

--The Boost release team

Vladimir Prus Rene Rivera Marshall Clow Eric Niebler Daniel James Beman Dawes

Thank you release team!

+1, especially this time out!

Thank you release team ! :)

2015-04-18 2:56 GMT+03:00 Michael Caisse :

On 04/17/2015 01:58 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:--The Boost release team

...

Vladimir Prus Rene Rivera Marshall Clow Eric Niebler Daniel James Beman Dawes

Thank you release team!

+1, well done! -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

On 4/20/2015 1:10 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

Le 20/04/15 00:09, Vladimir Batov a écrit :

...

Daniel James created an entry point for 'convert' in the Boost 'develop' branch and 'convert' has been sitting there for quite some time. Now that Boost 1.58.0 has been released I would like to have 'convert' promoted from 'develop' to 'master' so that 'convert' would make it to 1.59. Is there anything that *I* can/need to do to have an entry point created for 'convert' in the Boost 'master' branch?

Hi,

I would start a new thread and add you review manager. It is the review manager that should check everything is okay.

I was the review manager for 'convert' and it was accepted into Boost. It has been on 'develop' and been regression tested. I myself am not sure of the process of moving a library from 'develop' to 'master' so maybe someone dealing with the boostorg/boost project can comment. My educated guess is that it would involve a fork of boostorg/boost, a local 'pull --rebase' from that fork, changes locally that add the library submodule to 'master' with the necessary commit, a 'push' back to the fork, and then a pull request so that it shows up at boostorg/boost and eventually gets merged into the superproject. I believe part of the local changes are also that status/jamfile.v2 has to be changed so that the library's tests are added to it.

Daniel, On 04/21/2015 10:04 AM, Daniel James wrote:

...

On 4/20/2015 1:10 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

Le 20/04/15 00:09, Vladimir Batov a écrit :

...

Daniel James created an entry point for 'convert' in the Boost 'develop' branch and 'convert' has been sitting there for quite some time. Now that Boost 1.58.0 has been released I would like to have 'convert' promoted from 'develop' to 'master' so that 'convert' would make it to 1.59. Is there anything that *I* can/need to do to have an entry point created for 'convert' in the Boost 'master' branch?

Hi,

I would start a new thread and add you review manager. It is the review manager that should check everything is okay. The review manager should have approved it before it was added to develop, release managers check that something is okay for release.

I'll take it a look at it soon-ish if no one else does first (although it would be nice if someone else did). Give me a shout if I forget. ...

Thank you for your promptly reply. It's very much appreciated. If nothing happens, when you'd suggest I start "shouting"? A couple of weeks, perhaps? Just don't want to be interrupting prematurely/unnecessarily.

On 4/20/2015 8:04 PM, Daniel James wrote:

...

On 4/20/2015 1:10 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

Le 20/04/15 00:09, Vladimir Batov a écrit :

...

Daniel James created an entry point for 'convert' in the Boost 'develop' branch and 'convert' has been sitting there for quite some time. Now that Boost 1.58.0 has been released I would like to have 'convert' promoted from 'develop' to 'master' so that 'convert' would make it to 1.59. Is there anything that *I* can/need to do to have an entry point created for 'convert' in the Boost 'master' branch?

Hi,

I would start a new thread and add you review manager. It is the review manager that should check everything is okay.

The review manager should have approved it before it was added to develop, release managers check that something is okay for release.

I'll take it a look at it soon-ish if no one else does first (although it would be nice if someone else did). Give me a shout if I forget.

On 20 April 2015 at 20:38, Edward Diener wrote:

...

My educated guess is that it would involve a fork of boostorg/boost, a local 'pull --rebase' from that fork, changes locally that add the library submodule to 'master' with the necessary commit, a 'push' back to the fork, and then a pull request so that it shows up at boostorg/boost and eventually gets merged into the superproject. I believe part of the local changes are also that status/jamfile.v2 has to be changed so that the library's tests are added to it.

When I do it, I usually just copy the changes over. I don't know why you want to rebase.

What do you mean by "I usually just copy the changes over." ? Do you mean that you 'pull' from boostorg/boost, make the change locally and then push to the fork ?

On 19 April 2015 at 23:09, Vladimir Batov wrote:

Daniel James created an entry point for 'convert' in the Boost 'develop' branch and 'convert' has been sitting there for quite some time. Now that Boost 1.58.0 has been released I would like to have 'convert' promoted from 'develop' to 'master' so that 'convert' would make it to 1.59. Is there anything that *I* can/need to do to have an entry point created for 'convert' in the Boost 'master' branch?

I was just checking the library to see if it's ready for master, we generally like to have a mostly clean inspect report before adding it. You can see current issues at: http://boost.cowic.de/rc/docs-inspect-develop.html#convert Although that's a few weeks out of date, I'll run a new documentation build tomorrow, which should update it. If you don't know about handling min and max macros, that's documented at: http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Design_and_Programming Can you also have another look at the test results? Particularly the gcc 5 errors, which I think is released now. Although I suppose it's 5.1 that matters. For other failures, if they're not fixable, they should be marked up in status/explicit-failures-markup.xml if possible, it's pretty limited though, so it might not be.