Re: [boost] [feature freeze] range issue

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-17 16:40:56

Thorsten,

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

> 
> I dno't like it.

Seriously, I don't like it either. I'd much rather have an updated range 
lib in 1.34 but time just ran out.

Let me add some rationale. The reason the reason the range update will 
be postponed and some other last minute things weren't is the fact that 
a fair amount of stuff depends on range and at least one library author 
has raised concerns. So it's not simply an issue of try and revert if ti 
fails. Other libraries potentially loose stabilization time and might 
have to revert changes they made in case the range update is pulled. So 
there is a huge potential for delaying the whole process.

So the trade-off is either delaying the range update or delaying future 
boost releases and thereby delaying updates to all other boost libs. In 
this case I don't think the issues in boost.range are serious enough to 
justify holding up everything else.

> For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a 
> freah-check out. Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong
> protocol for range conformance.
> 
> Can't we just roll-back to the current cvs if we cannot stabalize it 
> within, say, a week?

This is possible taking a week or more out of a planned 4 week freeze 
period where things need to stabilize. We just don't have that time if 
we want more frequent releases.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Witt
witt_at_[hidden]