From: Johannes Brunen (jbrunen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-28 10:04:17
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:37:24 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> Boost.Graph changes have caused plenty of regressions in Boost.Python
> in the past.
Sorry, I thougth that this would be a pretty good example of a high
level library. So I was wrong.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:33:26 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> 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.
Yes, but if I have the choice of waiting one additional week for the check
in of an accepted library against waiting 2 month for the next release
I would choose to wait that additional week. However, I have read in one
of the other mails that you have a deadline with your book. So live is not
that simple at all. I won't persist on changing the planned schedule.
Don't get me wrong.
> 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.
No, I merely think that a library should be accepted when it is ready
for checkin and there is not a list of changes and request pending.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:34:22 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:51:36 +0200, Johannes Brunen wrotes
>> We should list them on the lib page but in a special section.
> I don't like the sound of that. It should be very clear to people
> which things are part of Boost and which aren't.
Ok, I second that. If it not clear for people what is part of boost
then it is the wrong way. People should be able to build on a boost
With kind regards
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk