[boost] Re: 1.32 release preparation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-28 06:33:26

"Johannes Brunen" <jbrunen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

We should have more releases.  Waiting for libraries to be checked in
is one thing that keeps us from being able to release more frequently.

>> 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 procedure again.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

It sounds like you want a whole new Boost procedure for reviews *and*
releases.  That seems like a stretch; we don't have any idea whether
it would work at all.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com