[boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-11 13:56:11

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

In that case, can I release 1.30.2?  I don't like having the 1.30.1
debacle hanging over my head.

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