From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-27 10:30:20
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:53:29 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> I'd like to know the reasons for "all the sudden rush". We did
I agree with Dave on this -- the release was advertised ages ago. As much as
I'd like to see circular_buffer, serialization, etc in this release I'd rather
see us pull off a release that doesn't take 2-3 months to accomplish. I
believe we should hold the line on the schedule now and anything that isn't
ready should simply go in the next release. One reason I believe this is that
it is unfair to the people graciously volunteering their time to manage the
release -- being in limbo for 2 months is a big burden. There is also a
higher load on the folks running regression tests. And if there are a large
number of new things left out by that approach then we should plan another
release sooner rather than waiting 4 months.
> announce a schedule long ago, and it has already been delayed by
> three weeks. I'm not asking in order to point fingers; I just want
> to know how to avoid the "sudden rush" next time. How come we have
> so many accepted libraries that have not even been put in the CVS?
I think there are 2 factors here. One is that we have been reviewing and
accepting a large number of libraries recently. So, many of these have been
accepted in the last couple months. The other thing that seems to be a
pattern is that libraries get accepted, then authors get a list of changes to
make. If they get busy it often takes months to get these done and then
finally they check into CVS. So a release tends to trigger the evaluation of
anything that is in that multi-month pipeline.
BTW, I've been very busy lately, but I noticed that the reviews seem to have
ground to a halt again -- I haven't pinged Mr. Witt, but we seem to have lost
focus on working off the review backlog.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk