Re: [boost] 1.35 release approach (was [1.34.0] Deadline)

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-01 10:21:03

Jeff Garland wrote:
> Now, I realize that we have a plan to switch to subversion and have a new 
> process that has been developed by Beman, etc. But it's my view that we should 
> pursue a CVS based approach because it requires zero time to implement.  In 
> the meantime the subversion conversion can proceed in parallel.  When 
> everything is 100% ready to go we switch.  My worry is that the conversion of 
> regression testing, developers, and all other release process changes will 
> wind up delaying 1.35 by several months.  Of course, if my pessimism is 
> misplaced then we can switch to subversion for the 1.35 release.  Nothing will 
> have been lost because we will have been testing new libs for 1.35 anyway.

I disagree. The one thing I've learned from the various Boost release, 
and general development, is that developers will not do "parallel" if 
they can avoid it. There are various reasons for this, but the most 
obvious one is that people have very little time to volunteer. Hence if 
we make the Subversion switch an additional task for people it will take 
a long time to complete, because we just don't have enough people resources.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo