From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-25 22:33:11
Robert Ramey wrote:
> I understand that as boost gets bigger it gets harder to make
> new releases. There is more to do, more to keep in sync,
> and more ripple effect in changes. I see this more structured
> and formal release procedure as an attempt to deal with this.
> It seems to aim for a closer coordination of developement
> and release efforts to avoid difficulties associated with
> development of software libraries which have varying
> degrees of coupling.
That is certainly part of the idea.
> Basically, I don't believe the current Boost developement model is
> scalable and I think the procedure has to change to recognise this.
> So in my view the current proposal goes in exactly the wrong
I can see your point. I would like to postpone this discussion until
after 1.34 because I strongly believe that it is just too late for 1.34
to make major changes.
> Note that this is starting to occur by necesity. Multi-index has a "beta"
> version compatible with 1.33 that one can download. I've been
> testing changes to serialization on my machine against 1.33. I haven't
> checked them into the HEAD. So now I know what problems are
> mine and what problems are associated with changes in compiler
> versions, stlport versions etc. My next step is to make a few more
> changes, run some more tests locally (basically later version of stlport)
> and upload a package similar to Joaquin's. This would make the
> changes (mostly bug fixes and documentation upates) available
> to those who need them now and also give those who want to help
> me out a way to test my changes without waiting for the next release
> when it will be too late to fix anything.
I have doubts that we have the infrastructure in place that would be
needed for this. This might be different once we switched to subversion.
-- 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