En réponse à David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Martin Wille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Abrahams wrote: > > > >> In that case, can I release 1.30.2? I don't like having the 1.30.1 > >> debacle hanging over my head. > > > > > > There are new regressions on Linux (RC_1_30_0 branch): > > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0/developer_summary_page.html > > > > > > crc has regressions for gcc-3.1 and gcc-3.2.3 > > config, format and io have regressions for intel 7.1 > > According to your chart, the following libraries are all regressing:
[...] > numeric/interval [...] Nothing has been commited to the RC_1_30_0 branch for the interval library, so there should be no regression. In fact, the "regression" you speak about happens with gcc-3.4-cvs. Martin was careful not to mention these failures in his mail. > Are these real regressions or just newly-tested compilers? Can the > library authors/maintainers address these problems? Where is our > maintenance wizard? Mainly newly-tested compilers (gcc-3.3.1 and gcc-3.4). You just have to focus on gcc-3.1, gcc-3.2.3 and intel-7.1 columns. Regards, Guillaume _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
