From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-20 15:32:47
At 06:12 AM 12/20/2003, John Maddock wrote:
>> >Okay. Let's branch, then.
>> One argument against branching is that this coming week is so
>> that it might be better to just peck away at minor stuff link the Linux
>> regressions and Intel 8.0 testing, and branch in a week as people start
>> Is any one desperately waiting for the branch?
>No, personally I would prefer this weekend to finish off a few minor
>Thread lib better #errror messages
>Patch to msvc-stlport-tools.jam (documented STLPORT_VERSION currently has
>Add vc7-stlport and vc7.1-stlport toolsets
>Minor patch to test/src/execusion_monitor.cpp (reported a while ago, but
>All those are ready to go.
Good! I see you've checked them in.
>What were the gcc-2.95 issues?
My memory is that there were regressions in several Libraries.
>However I think we should set a definite timetable for release now, how
>about branching right after Christmas with a release for early in the New
>Year? Depends a lot on how busy people are.
That sounds good to me. I've just gotten a first run off on Intel 8.0.
Fails dropped from 68 to 6. I'd like people to look at those six failures
to be very sure they aren't Boost problems. But I don't know if it will be
possible to get people's attention this week and next.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk