Re: [boost] Re: 1.30.0 release postmortem

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
>> improvements
>> 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