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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-26 21:35:48

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>>> Again, the best thing we can do to make sure that the latest release
>>>> of Boost is "more up to date" with the latest enhancements from
>>>> library authors is to shorten the release cycle.
>>>
>>> This presupposes a release cycle defined by target dates.
>>
>> ??  A release cycle is the time between release dates, by definition.
                 ^^^^^

> Hmm - this is a source of confusion then.  My view is that a release
> is set of modules with some minimal level (zero ?) of bugs, quirks
> or other anamolies that we are comfortable recommending that users
> use.  Whether this "release" occurs on some prespecified target date
> or when some new feature is added isn't relevant to my usage of the
> word "release".

Mine neither.  I'm not quibbling over what a release is.  A release
_cycle_ is the period between releases.

>> As mentioned, doesn't work when you depend on new changes in another
>> library.  You could, however, include that library's changes in your
>> branch.  That will be lots easier once we have SVN.
>
> In my scenario the problem doesn't come up.  my library X depends
> on your library Y.  I'm on my branch and you are on yours.  So my
> library X can't even be built until yours is checked into the trunk.
> As soon as your library Y is merged to the trunk and trunk is
> retested (ie "released") its now available.

You have been advocating testing library branches against the last
release.  If you want to change your proposal now so that library
branches are being tested against the trunk, that's fine, but don't
act like you've been saying that all along.  (No matter how streamlined
things get, we will not have a release the instant something changes
on the trunk)

>>> They are not tied to any specific target date.
>>
>> Again, probably not feasible until we're using SVN.
>
> Again, I don't see anything in CVS that prevents is usage in this manner.
> In fact, I believe that's the way it is intended to be used.

The lack of atomic changes to the trunk and to branches makes it very
difficult to capture a point in time when everything is passing.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com