From: Johannes Brunen (jbrunen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-28 03:36:51
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30:20 -0700, Jeff Garland wrote:
> 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.
I disagree on that. We don't have that many Boost releases. Waiting for the next one could
be a long time. Therefore, I propose to wait until all (or as many as possibly considering a
reasonable time schedule) accepeted libraries will be checked into CVS and be part of the release.
> 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.
However, then you need new volunteers which have to spend the time for the whole
> 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
I could think of a review process which accepts a library only after the list of
requested changes has beem made.
> 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.
That isn't good. I would prefere a review process which leads to final acceptance only
after a library is 'CVS' compatible i.e. does not yield to any (known) regressions of the
existing pool libraries and is equipted with a working testing facility.
With best regards
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk