[boost] Re: plans for a bugfix release ?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-15 19:36:57

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 11:50 AM 7/15/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>  >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>  >
>  >> At 10:26 AM 7/15/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>  >>
>  >>  >Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese_at_[hidden]>
>       writes:
>  >>  >
>  >>  >>> In general, they are released when all of Boost is ready.  I think
>  >>  >>> it would be a *really* good idea for Boost to do at least one
>          minor
>  >>  >>> version release shortly after any major version release.  Now that
>  >>  >>> we have a reasonable testing strategy it should be relatively
>          easy.
>  >>  >>> Boost 1.30.0 went out with several bugs IIRC.
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>> Until we get our act together, I would suggest you supply people
>  >>  >>> with a Boost patch.  Use "BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME" instead of
>  >>  >>> "typename" so you don't break VC6.  Sorry,
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >> A fixed release would be great indeed.  In the mean time, I'm
>         going >to
>  >>  >> provide the patch as you suggest, although it's far from a perfect
>  >>  >> solution of course..
>  >>  >
>  >>  >What does everybody think about doing a 1.30.1 release "RSN?"
>  >>
>  >> What would be the advantage of doing a 1.30.1 release rather than a
>  >> 1.31.0 release?
>  >
>  >When we released 1.30.0, despite extensive pre-release testing, it
>  >went out with several prominent showstopper bugs.  Don't you think
>  >we'll make the same mistake for 1.31.0?
>
> No, of course not. There is only one new library ready for
> 1.31.0. We've essentially been working on 1.31.0 for several months. A
> huge amount of effort has gone into finding and fixing bugs. The
> iterator adaptor changes have temporarily obscured the progress, but
> it is there nonetheless.
>
>  > Also, AFAICT 1.30.1 can go out much, much sooner.
>
> Hum... You must be seeing some way of getting a 1.30.1 release out
> that eludes me. What would go into 1.30.1? 

Exactly what's on the end of the RC_1_30_0 branch plus whatever
additional small fixes were deemed important and can be applied in a
day or two; release to happen in a week.

> There have probably been hundreds of changes to CVS since the 1.30.0
> tag. How would we distinguish what should or should not be merged
> into a 1.30.1 branch?  

Only *critical* fixes to the 1.30.0 release.

> Who will make the decisions? 

Individual library developers.

> Who will do the testing? 

Whoever does testing for any release?

> Who will act as release manager? 

I guess I'd have to reluctantly volunteer, now that I've suggested it.

> How will we prevent a 1.30.1 release from delaying a 1.31.0 release?

By releasing one week from now?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com