[boost] Re: boost v 1.33 ?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-01 03:53:40

Robert Ramey writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>> Robert Ramey writes:
>> [...]
>>
>> The above assumes that *the main trunk* is in the good state, and
>> it's not --
>
> actually it assumes this the main trunk can be brought to a good
> state in a relatively short time like 10 days.

That's what I meant.

>
> I don't believe the number of red squares is an accurate reflection
> of the state and how much work there is to do.

I'd say it's proven to be pretty accurate (excluding the extreme
cases when everything is red due to Boost-wide or
environment/configuration issues).

> Many of these problems have a common cause.

Across all the libraries?

Note that currently the reports are missing a significant share of
(our) Win32 toolsets which will definitely add more colors to the
picture.

> In at least one case, there's a new compiler which wasn't
> tested at 1.32 at all.  

Which one? If it wasn't tested with 1.32, it shouldn't appear as a
regression.

> I believe that a new release have improvements over
> the current one and have no regressions.

If you meant "should have", I agree 100%.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering