Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 15:17:21


Vladimir Prus wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Thu Aug 02 2007, Vladimir Prus <> wrote:
> We actually had examples of such proactive release management in past,
> and it worked good, but it's clearly time consuming. So one
> possible solution is to

For one thing it does not scale. The more important part that you are missing is:

We have zero leverage over library developers.

Let me repeat this:

We have ZERO LEVERAGE over library developers.

Any approach that relies on people doing things when asked is doomed.

> 1. Document the process.
> 2. Distribute it in time -- for example if we have
> a single 'development' branch, we can record all regressions
> that appear on the branch and demand that they are fixed
> in a month, or the offending commit reverted.
> 3. Distribute it over people -- instead of having
> one release manager doing all the work, we can have
> "bug masters" that will focus on regressions in a
> subset of platforms, or subset of libraries.

There were many documented and distributed processes in the past. Nobody reads the FM. And
to be honest I can't even blame people.


Thomas Witt

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at