Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-11 12:48:10

At 07:37 AM 8/11/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
 >Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >> Beman Dawes wrote:
 >>> Assuming I'm release manager for 1.31.0, I'm going to publish explicit
 >>> release criteria for key platform/compiler pairs. Basically, the
 >>> criteria will be 100% accounting for all failures on those
 >>> platform/compiler pairs.
 >>
 >> While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see
 >> _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous
 >> release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are
 >> currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools
 >> to ensure it.
 >
 >I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on
 >compiler combinations they don't test with.  For example, who is going
 >to address the one lexical_cast failure that's plaguing the 1.30.2
 >release?  It's only on intel-7.1 with STLPort and looks for all the
 >world like a config problem.

It can be very time consuming to track down the exact reason for failures. 
Thus we should focus our 1.31.0 effort on a small number of widely used 
compilers which don't have a lot of problems.

For a lightly used toolset like intel-7.1 with STLPort, "looks for all the 
world like a config problem" seems like a good enough resolution to me.

--Beman