Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-03 07:17:45

On Mon, 3 May 2004 12:23:06 +0100, John Maddock wrote
> > Switching testing to the release branch is not a problem (at least for
> us),
> > but a full-fledged release also involves other administrative work, in
> > particular preparing and uploading the archives, tagging the CVS, etc. --
> > And in general, somebody needs to manage it. If
> > that's going to be taking care of, we'll take care of Win32 regressions.
> > Otherwise, I'd say patches are a way to go, until 1.32.
> Well I'm willing to put some time into this, or I wouldn't have suggested
> it, however there's no point unless there's a general desire for an
> update, so I would like be interested in what other Boost authors
> feel about this.

I have one nasty date_time bug that I've fixed since 1.31 which would be
worthy of including in a patch release. If authors only include critical
bugfixes, the number of regressions should be minimal and hence the release
work should be minimized. OTOH, if there is a bit more discipline with 1.32
(that is, the release process doesn't take 3 months) 1.31.1 would only have a
life of a couple months...


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at