From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-01 11:12:13
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Actually, I think Beman's new approach is much closer in philosophy
>> to what I'm suggesting. As I recall in provides for a small window
>> to fix regressions after which breaking changes will be reverted.
>> It's ultimate goal is to keep the HEAD much closer to release at all
>> times. Still, it is untested so we don't know how it will really
>> work yet.
> As I understand it, "keep HEAD release-ready" is the opposite of what you
> are suggesting, which is "branch 1.35 as soon as 1.34 is released".
> In fact, there is no need to wait for 1.34 to be released - you can have the 1.35
> branch proceeding in parallel (general lack of resources aside.)
Agree, and actually I have been trying to move things forward with what little
time I have. I've been rabble rousing behind the scenes to get authors to get
their libs checked into CVS. We have a couple libs: asio and xpressive whose
regressions are already clean on several of the release compilers. We need to
get the other new libs into the regression test suite so we can assess their
state. Eric and Chris can start working on markup/changes for the other
regressions, etc, etc.
The bottleneck I see is the regression testers. Right now Thomas needs them to
keep running against 1.34 for final patches he's adding in. Going forward, I
believe we will need significant time and energy from the regression runners
as we test the subversion switchover. What I'd like to see happen is that
instead of going back to main branch after Thomas is done we swap the
regression testers over to the 1.35 branch immediately. The folks testing
main can be the first beta-testers for subversion switchover.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk