From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-11 15:04:30
"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> The problems with the current release approach are not caused by release
>> managers or developers, but rather by the release system itself. It just
>> doesn't scale up to the number of libraries now in Boost, since every
>> library has to be ready before a release can occur.
>> These problems will only grow worse as more libraries are added.
> I think you are considering just one dimension of the problem.
Yes, and that is deliberate.See below.
> The other one -- the number of supported compilers is IMO equaly, if not
> even more, important. The broken build can be detected only after the
> regressions run on all the compilers. Which may be a few days (or a few
> weeks). To fix the build would require a few more regression cycles, and
> that time new errors can (and most likely will) be introduced.
> Something needs to be done about compiler availability -- this is the most
> critical issue, IMO.
Testing issues such as what compilers to support abd/or require are
Distribution issue (subsets, binaries, etc.) are also important.
If we try to fix all problems at once, I am afraid we will bog down in
details. IMO, the several dimensions of the general release problem are
separable. Hence the focus on fixing the release model as a separate task.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk