Re: [boost] 1.34 Release Plan - an alternative view

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-26 01:33:15

At 22:30 2006-01-25, Robert Ramey wrote:
>Thomas Witt wrote:
> > 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.
>
>I'm quite sure we don't have the infrastructure in place.  My motivation
>is to to start a discussion that might result in movement to such
>an infrastructure.  The last cycle lasted from july (initial projected
>release date)

I thought someone originally said release on April 15.
btw, I notice we're planning on (again <sigh>) putting all the 
release stuff on a "tagged branch" then _manually_ changing all the 
regression test machines to test on the "release branch" with all the 
chaos that attends.

I won't argue this time, I'll simply summarize.  Leave the release 
stuff on the HEAD branch and tell developers who want to mess around 
with stuff that's NOT going to be in 1.34 to simply make their OWN 
branch and go work on it.

>to november (release of 1.33.1) and was quite
>arduous.  Each one is harder than the last.  My point is that the
>process has to be re-thought.
>
>Robert Ramey
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > Thomas
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"