From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-12 07:51:51
Pedro LamarÃ£o <pedro.lamarao <at> intersix.com.br> writes:
> Beman Dawes escreveu:
> "Formal releases occur on a regular schedule. The formal release
> procedure is simply to package up the last tagged revision of stable,
> publish release candidates, and decide if there are any issues serious
> enough to wait for the next stable tag point."
> If this process would contemplate a bugfix branches associated with
> stable tags, and if some backporting fixes effort were made, the people
> complaining about API stability would be happier.
I agree. In my opinion a new branch should be created on STABLE for each formal
release. Its main purpose would be to provide an escape should anything go wrong
with the formal release, but it would also be available for smaller scale
bugfixing and backporting, subject to availability of necessary resources; I'm
aware that control should be exercised over what is committed on the formal
release branches, especially since these do not have an associated "unstable"
branch. People wishing to contribute to a bugfix branch should ensure that a
reasonable amount of regression testing is performed before the branch is given
a new "stable" tag.
Note that this would require a change in the release numbering scheme; a couple
of alternatives could be to add a fourth number for the weekly tags or to just
use the date in the YYYYMMDD format.
> No need to bugfix for ever; maybe just the previous release; or whatever
> is confortable enough. This should just give more longevity, and a
> healthier old age, to each Boost release.
Bug fixing should be performed on an as needed/as voluteered basis.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk