Re: [boost] Re: 1.29.0?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 12:16:16

From: "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]>

> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:51:04 -0400, Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >I would strongly prefer to have wrapped up 1.29.0 this week, released,
then
> >gone on with destabilizing merges. We haven't released since May, and
there
> >are already a huge number of changes (6 new libraries, with major
upgrades to
> >3 other libraries); on the personal side, I really want the Function
changes
> >to get out into a released version of Boost before the proposal is
discussed
> >in Santa Cruz so that the new syntax is available in a stable version of
> >Boost.
>
> Your post and Mr. Abrahams reply have really surprised me. Not only I
> have been recently said that there are no actual criteria to decide a
> release, but I've always thought that the purpose of boost was to
> estabilish 'existing practice'. Now I hear that someone is in a hurry
> to get something released so that it can be seen at one of the
> committee meetings which contradicts both the 'no criteria' and the
> 'existing practice' idea. How can something that nobody has used yet
> be existing practice?

Don't make too much of this. Plenty of people have been working with the
Boost CVS state. Nothing's going to be accepted into C++0x at the next
committee meeting anyway, but it really helps to have something available
(more easily than through CVS, like on a website) for people to play with
when you make a proposal.

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com