Re: [boost] Re: 1.29.0?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 19:04:47

At 05:56 PM 9/17/2002, Paul Mensonides wrote:

 >----- Original Message -----
 >From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
 >
 >> > Also, I haven't understood Mr. Abrahams idea about a boost release
 >> > being "something available". I think we should not forget that when
 >> > boost releases there will certainly be a lot of people that will 
start
 >> > using the released code. If the goal is only to have the code
 >> > available for the committee why not creating e.g. a "committee
 >> > sandbox" instead of binding people with something released in a hurry
 >> > and, above all, not (expressly) for their use?
 >>
 >> This is out of context. 1.29.0 was supposed to go out a month ago. 
That's
 >> the problem that is being discussed.
 >
 >This is partly because of me.  I had to stabilize the preprocessor 
library
 >in on relatively short notice, and several other library's are using it,
 >so they were waiting for me.

It wasn't a problem with any one person or library. More a confluence of 
factors.

Look at it this way; many commercial software projects would consider it a 
plus to only miss a ship target by a month. Not to mention we should be 
thankful that several Boost developers were willing to put in long hours to 
deal with various situations that arose.

--Beman