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

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 17:06:06

"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:46647897.5030204_at_gmail.com...
>>>> The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.
>>
>> Which particular part?
>
> On-demand testing, testing of breaking-stable branch, continuous testing
> of stable branch, all with high-availability and high-. Currently we can
> only manage partial testing of *1* branch, in one build variation. And
> now we are talking of testing at least three branches at once.

My solution doesn't require ANY of that. Let me repeat NONE. Well, 
high-availability/quick responce would be nice. But it's optional. It can be 
done at later stage. Every library is tested against particular set of 
dependencies selected by developer. But only *one* per lib. It does require 
additional disk space for source tree copy. I don't believe it major 
requirement these days.

>> Can we get strait to the point?
>>
>> What is required to make stable release? (Complete list)
>> Why 1.34.0 is not stable?
>
> Complete, interesting thought :-) I can't say I have such a complete
> list. But perhaps this will give you and idea:
>
> * Bugs attributed 1.34.0 <http://tinyurl.com/2cn7g6>, and only a small
> number of them are targeted for 1.34.1.

I see only 6 bugs assigned to 1.34.1. To be frank with you I don;t see why 
do we need to hurry with releasing them.

> * The inspection reports 193 non-license problems, and *1059* license
> problems.

This is not a showstopper IMO. 1.34.0 in the same state isn't it?

> * We don't test the build and install process.

What do you want to test? In any case it doesn't make release "unstable"

> * We don't test libraries against an installed release.

What do you mean?

> * We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used
> variant by users.

We shouldn't be doing this at all IMO. NO testing during release.

> * We don't test, to any effective means, 64 bit architectures.
>
> * We don't test, to any effective means, multi-cpu architectures.

Would be nice ... in future releases. It doesn't make current unstable.

>> I believe spliting the directory structure will our life way simple in 
>> many
>> prospectives. What complications do you see?
>
> It increases the number of combinations that need testing. And in
> complicates the build and testing infrastructure. Both of which increase
> the likelihood of instability.

No. They don't. We are going to be testing *single* combination per library.

Let's me clarify again: do you believe 1.34.0 can't be used as stable 
starting point? If not, why?

Gennadiy