From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-13 11:51:54
>With the new MPL in the main trunk and the updated MPL documentation coming
>later this week, we've finally come to the point when it's feasible to talk
>about the branch-for-release date.
>Given that there is still some work on regressions to be done, I'd like to
>aim for the end of the week, let's say Friday, September 17th. Does that
>sound OK to everybody?
Sounds too optimistic to me.
>I'm assuming that at this point all library authors/maintainers are
>finished with the tasks they wanted to perform before the release, minor
>regression fixes aside. If not, please scream loudly!
That's a reasonable assumption. But ...
>One thing that we really have to take care of before branching is long
>filenames. Could maintainers of the following libraries please fix the
>corresponding problems listed in detail in
> archive (serialization)
The problem here is that some boost libraries depend on other boost
libraries. E.g. serialization depends on spirit, lots of stuff depend on
iterator, everything depends on test. So changing names will have lots of
secondary effects. I'm still struggling with the fact that spirit 1.61
depends upon apply_if.hpp which no longer exists. In effect this makes the
serialization library unavailable to vc 6.0, borland and others. That's just
one case. BTW. These changes will break user code that depends on previous
boost versions. So that's another question.
Another issue is that the toolsets have some pending anomalies. Aside from
the fact that the toolset documentation is now out of sync with the actual
toolsets available and in use, I'm having problems with all those which use
stlport which used to work. I'm still tracking this down.
This is just the stuff I know about. I would say 17 Sep is hopelessly
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk