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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-01 09:44:17

"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 10:53 2006-01-31, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>> > At 03:01 2006-01-30, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >>
>> >>I keep asking, if you only release what's on HEAD, how do you do
>> >>point releases?
>> >
>> > what's the "meaning" of a "point" release anyhow?
>>
>>The "meaning" is a release that's exactly like some other release
>>except for the addition of bug fixes.
>>
>> > release numbers (names) are a marketing concept (so the collateral
>> > material can be produced).  They've _never_ had any relevance to
>> > software (other than some loose conventions which caused more
>> > problems than they were worth)
>>
>>Yes, numbering is irrelevant.  I didn't mention numbering.  Please
>>address the question with that in mind.
>
> and exactly what does "point" refer to if NOT the separator between 
> numbers?  for example 1.33.1

I'm not talking about notation, and I think that should be abundantly
clear at this point.  I'm going to keep calling it a point release
because that is the commonly accepted name for a a release that's
exactly like some other release except for the addition of bug fixes.
Please try to ignore the offensive implication in the terminology so I
don't have to write a long sentence where only two words would do.

But to humor you, let me rephrase the question:

    How do you make a release that's exactly like some other release
    except for the addition of bug fixes, when other non-bug-fix
    material has been checked into the HEAD?

>>We can easily automate what branch people are testing.
>
> we haven't thusfar

It's a lot easier than solving the point release problem.

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