From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-06 22:48:07
Rene Rivera wrote:
> Thomas Witt wrote:
>> 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.
> AFAICT the it also mandates increasing the testing and release
> management tools pipeline.
That isn't the idea. Rather the current lengthly pipeline is gradually
retired in favor of shorter independent pipelines.
>>> 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.
By definition, the last release is always considered stable. Stable
doesn't mean perfect, it just means good enough to build upon.
>> Agreed. Lets build the foundations first.
> Yes. And some of us have been working hard toward that. I've made the
> changes to the regression scripts to publish test results to
> <http://beta.boost.org:8081/>. And Noel is hard at work making it
> possible to publish to that server directly from bjam+boost.build, and
> hence making it possible to shorten the testing tool chain.
That will be a nice help!
>> 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.
I agree. OTOH, I'd like to do minor surgery on a small number of
libraries, particularly moving the headers into the library's
<root>/libs tree (and presumably replacing any headers in the the
<root>/boost tree with forwarding headers).
> 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!
> 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)
Could you explain that thought a bit? By "website content" do you mean
portions of the website that are no tied to a particular library?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk