From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-25 22:24:39
> Thomas Witt wrote:
>> For that reason I am going to aim for a feature freeze (Stage 3) in
>> two weeks from now.
> Does that imply we are in 'stage 2' now, or are we jumping straight
> from 1 -> 3?
Well for all practical purposes assume we are transitioning 1->3 for
this release in order to get started.
> I ask, because there was recent discussion on the boost.build lists
> about moving to v2 for the next release, and if we are already stage 2
> it would seem too to make such a change.
> At the least, I think the build maintainers and regression testers need
> to make a decision on this fast if we are heading back into release
> Will Boost 1.34 be based on boost build v1 or boost build v2?
If v2 is up and running in two weeks it can make it in. My personal
opinion is that this is a recipe for disaster. I would like to push it
> Second contentious issue: deprecations.
> We have already used a deprecation mechanism for warning about and
> later removing libraries. There has been some recent discussion about
> stopping support for old compilers. This is a topic that is not going
> to go away until resolved, and I think we were getting close to some
> agreement (if not on which platforms should go!)
> I suggest we formally deprecate VC6, GCC prior to 3, and have a
> bun-fight over Borland support. This would ammount to adding the
> deprecation notice to the release notes, a #pragma warning to the
> compiler config.hpp, but full support through this release as before.
I would not be opposed to this.
-- Thomas Witt witt_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk