From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-16 16:06:55
At 09:30 AM 3/14/2003, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>I appreciate the difficulties in getting a release out.
>I _am_ puzzled about what behavior you wish people (who use (all | any)
>boost regularly) to use in validating problems they may encounter (most
>the time boost is in a constant state of improvement).
>During these times, the usual advice is check the latest out of CVS and
>verify the problem exists there.
No, the intent wasn't for people to do anything different..
>Now we appear to be told that the "latest" isn't to be used (for
>at any rate) until 1.30 is released.
>Is this a rule for ALL of boost for the duration?
>Enquiring minds want to know.
>_Surely_ you don't want people to _quit_ testing during this pre-release
>phase. That would make the whole phase irrelevant.
>I suggest further, that perhaps the release mechanism be changed such
>the "how to check the latest" NEVER changes from the point of view of the
>user/tester i.e. "cvs update -A -P -d" would ALWAYS get the latest
>to be working copy.
During release preparation, there are two actively being worked on version
- the main trunk and the RC branch.
One isn't better than the other - they are just different.
The reason I didn't commit the VC++7.1 beta filesystem operators_test
workaround to the main trunk and then merge right away into the release
candidate was that I simply don't know at this point how we are going to
handle the new bugs in VC+7.1. It hasn't even been shipped yet, and won't
for another month or so.
Please don't assume that this sort of very specific workaround is
indicative of policy - it is just a specific compiler problem workaround
for a specific release.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk