Re: [boost] [1.32 Release] Branch-for-release date

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-14 03:18:29

Robert Ramey writes:
>>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.

Well, let's try and see how it goes.

>
>>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
> http://www.boost.org/regression->logs/inspection_report.html?
>
>>    archive (serialization)
>>    build
>>    date_time
>>    graph
>>    iterator
>>    preprocessor
>>    property_map
>>    python
>>    serialization
>>    spirit
>>    test
>>    utility/enable_if
>
> 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 don't see how. There only two _header files_ that need to be
renamed, and they are both in the serialization library:

     boost/archive/polymorphic_binary_wiarchive.hpp: filename > 31 chars
     boost/archive/polymorphic_binary_woarchive.hpp: filename > 31 chars

> 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. 

What are others?

> These changes will break user code that depends on previous
> boost versions.  So that's another question.

MPL changes, yes. That was a conscious decision, and I don't see how
it's relevant to the question of branch-for-release date.

>
> 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, 

That's an issue that needs to be taken care of. Could you name the
toolsets you are aware of being out-of-sync with the docs?

> 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
> optimistic.

May be a little bit. All other issues aside, how much do you need to
get the serialization library only into the state that you would
consider releasable?

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering