Re: [boost] The Release Manager's Point of View

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 15:59:19

"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:46646B35.5050709_at_gmail.com...
> Thomas Witt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>
>> I was going to write this email, but Doug beat me to it.
>
> And I guess you both beat me to it... As I was busy spending all my free
> time trying to fix bugs for 1.34.1. Although what's below are not my
> only thoughts on the release procedure...
>
>> The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.

Which particular part?

> AFAICT the it also mandates increasing the testing and release
> management tools pipeline. And this is something we just don't have the
> resources to implement at this time. And likely wont have them in the
> next 6 months. In this respect I find the proposal contradictory. It
> both says that the tool chain needs to be simplified, at the cost of
> features, and calls for more tools.
>
>>> I agree with most of Beman's write-up, but it pre-supposes a robust
>>> testing system for Boost that just doesn't exist.
>
> It also pre-supposes a "stable" starting point for ongoing releases.
> First 1.34.1, will not be such a release. Second, it will take at least
> 6 months to make a clean and stable release, and that's without adding
> new libraries. Third, IMO to make a clean, stable, robust 1.35 following
> the proposal would take more than a year.

Can we get strait to the point?

What is required to make stable release? (Complete list)
Why 1.34.0 is not stable?

>> We will not ship 1.35.0 within the next year if we do
>> major surgery to our directory structure. It's just not going to happen.
>
> There are two other aspect to 1.35.0 that I'm trying to address. In
> another thread, I raised the question of svn dir structure. And it
> devolved into the same aspects that this thread devolved to, discussing
> how to split the sources up as much as  possible based on libraries.
> This is fine, but it doesn't get us any closer to managing the structure
> we currently have. We need to concentrate on making this simpler first!

I believe spliting the directory structure will our life way simple in many 
prospectives. What complications do you see?

> Which brings up the second item, the website. One of the simplifications
> for releases is to separate the website content from the release itself.
> (that was my rant)

Yes. I believe this is the way to go.

Gennadiy