Re: [boost] [feature freeze] range issue

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-17 09:46:13

Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Thomas Witt wrote:
>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> 
>>>Thomas,
>>>
>>>Do you have anything to add to the discussion on committing
>>>the new version of boost.range?
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry for the late reply my internet connectivity over the last few days 
>> was worse than expected.
>> 
>> Given the fact that we don't want destabilizing changes in feature 
>> freeze I would really like to move this to 1.35.
>
> I dno't like it. For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a 
> freah-check out. 

You're allowed to apply bugfixes now, just not check in new
features.  Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

> Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong protocol for range
> conformance.

Yep, the existing protocol will become more entrenched.

> Can't we just roll-back to the current cvs if we cannot stabalize it 
> within, say, a week?

Thorsten, it's now a week past the freeze date, which was announced
long ago.  Yeah, none of us are perfect -- I begged for an extension,
but I had a checkin ready to go the moment that I noticed the freeze
announcement had gone out, and it was done and the code stabilized the
instant Thomas approved it.  I want the new Range features, too, but
it seems to me that unless you can come up with some really convincing
argument why this particular library warrants making a special
exception to the rules -- and I'm still open to hearing one -- we have
to respect Thomas' decision as release manager.

That said, I think we should add the posting of a series of pre-freeze
reminders to the release process, so those who lose track of the
original announcement will be more likely to tie up their loose ends
in time.  This procedure will ultimately save lots of work for release
managers as well (fewer extension requests).

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