Re:Re: [boost] Re: 1.32 release preparation

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-28 10:45:13

Johannes Brunen wrote:

>> 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.

The release procedure is too onerous.  This isn't the problem, it's a
symptom of a more subtle problem. If the source of this difficulty can be
found can corrected, then releases can occur more frequently.  My personal
view is that it's a symptom of a development process that couples otherwise
independent/orthogonal efforts.  This is due to the fact that we're all
working against a development tree that has experimental code in it. So
minor issues ripple across all efforts.

>I could think of a review process which accepts a library only after the
>list of requested changes has been made.

> 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.

The review process qualifies submissions for inclusion into boost.  I don't
think there are any libraries that have been accepted then suffered changes
which made them unacceptable.  It's not fair to ask a submitter to require
that that he totally "finish" the package before submission when it cannot
be guaranteed that it will be accepted.  The review process isn't the
problem, its working quite well.  

It's just that there is more effort than first meets the eye between the
time a library is deemed acceptable and the time it is ready for inclusion
into boost.  The serialization library including code, headers, tests, html,
jamfiles, *.bat, and shell scripts is has passed 25,0000 lines. This takes
time and no changes in the review or release procedure can change that.
There is the review package which seems to work pretty well.  But I would be
reluctant to check it in as it doesn't match the review acceptance
conditions and I'm concerned about trying to maintain a package which I have
now moved beyond.

Robert Ramey