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

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 03:54:57

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> However, a main motivation for this idea is the elimination of the
>> need for "point release". If the "trunk" (HEAD in the current setup)
>> is maintained in a releaseable state, any need for a "point release"
>> would be addressed by just downloading the latest "releaseable"
>> version.
>
> No, it wouldn't.  In many organizations, code stability is important.
> It can be prohibitive to accept the next releasable state and make all
> the local adjustments that go along with it.

Agreed. I have some code that is currently stuck with boost V1.32 because it
uses boost.optional in a way that no longer works in V1.33. If I want to make
use of any changes/bug fixes in the rest of boost from more recent versions,
then I will either have to back-port them myself, rely on someone releasing
V1.32.1, or deal with the boost.optional problems.

If HEAD is always releasable, and always 100% backwards-compatible, then you
don't need point releases. If there are breaking changes, then you might need
point releases to support those customers who cannot accept the cost of
change.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk