From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-24 15:28:46
"Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> In many ways the preparation Boost 1.30.0 went very well, and the
>> resulting release seems very high quality to me.
>> There were rough edges of course, and we'll try to make some
>> in coming months. Mostly just procedural stuff like making sure we
>> have an active maintainer for all libraries, and getting maintainers
>> to make major changes earlier in the process.
>> The worst problem seems to me to be that our bug and patch tracking is
>> totally dysfunctional.
> I would like to add an idea that I have mentioned in the past; which is that
> each library have some documentation on the changes made from release to
> release, at least on the order of major things happening such as features
> being added or changed or deleted, so that the end user has some idea of
> what is different in the new release for that library. I find the idea that
> such documentation does not exist really disturbing. I believe library
> implementors have to take responsibility for such documentation although I
> imagine a patch tracking system would help.
I added that to Boost.Python, FWIW.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk