From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-04 22:41:36
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:35:22 -0700, Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote
> A problem that occurs is that some portion of the libraries may be
> all set to go for 1.33. The people who work on that want to start
> on 1.34 and have _nothing_ to do with any of the rest of the
> library. Given the diverse nature of how the boost libraries
> interconnect, it's amazing to me that we want to release the entire
> thing at _any_ point. Be that as it may, there's apparently going
> to be an official 1.33.0 "release" and folks working on other things
> (that ARE in 1.33, but will be updated in 1.34) justifiably want to
> work on THIER stuff. They need to put their work someplace.
> Therefore creating a branch point is likely required.
And I'd guess that the number of people that are done and working on 1.34 will
be less than the people working on 1.33. So you can argue that making the
'eager beavers' branch is less work overall than the current process. They
also have the option of working on the main branch and not checking in while
the release is going (they can always check out a new tree for minor bug fixes
if an emergency arises).
And I totally agree with Doug that the only true solution to reduce the pain
is to shorten the time. All of the options are a pain when the release
process takes 2.5 months.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk