From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 00:53:25
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:20:21 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote
> My motivation for preferring the latest release is that I would like
> to upload something that I can expect to work and other people can
> test with a minimum amount of hassle. I'm mean I have enough
> problems with my own flakey ( er.. experimental) code with out
> adding in everyone else's.
I agree completely -- I have the same issue. Even though I work out of the
cvs tree, I often don't update the other parts of boost for long periods of
> So as things stand now I'm inclined to work to the 1.31.0 .
Makes sense -- I just switched back to 1.31 when when I ran into trouble.
> Having said that, it seems to me the development tree is considered
> "experimental" where as I would prefer that it be considered
> "Candidate for Release" That is, I think code is uploaded without
> out being fully tested in one's local environment. I think this
> creates a chain reaction at release time. Its not that I think
> anyone is really wrong, just that I think things would be better if
> developer's were a little more conservative. (But then, I'm getting
> old, I think that about everybody)
No, I don't think there is alot of 'wild checking in' causing this issue. In
my case, several compilers are usually checked before changes are checked-in
-- but things still break. This is especially true with the old compilers --
some of them are just plain cranky. And not having all the compilers it
sometimes takes some time to fix things since it is a 24 hour cycle between
fix and test.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk