From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 17:20:27
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> * 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.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Why these bugs are assigned to 1.34.1 ?
Because they are regressions / showstoppers that have the highest priority.
Or why the people aren't focusing on 1.35 now ? (I guess because it's always
more fun to focus on features an not bug fixes.) Etc.
>> * We don't test the build and install process.
> What do you want to test? In any case it doesn't make release "unstable"
The release (well, in fact, packaging) process was retarded because a substantial
number of bugs only turned up during that very last phase, simply because that
wasn't tested at all. Had packaging (etc.) be part of the regular testing procedure
those bugs weren't present, at that time in the release process.
>> * We don't test libraries against an installed release.
> What do you mean?
In the sake of modularity (for example), take a boost library X, and test
it in isolation, against its prerequisite boost libraries installed, not
part of the same source tree.
>> * 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.
You lost me.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk