From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 15:57:23
Thomas Witt wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Thu Aug 02 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> 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.
You don't need to repeat this twice, and I'm not missing this.
This is common in open source. For example, the gcc release
manager has no leverage over large majority of gcc developers.
Yet, gcc release process where periodic status updates are posted,
and where specific persons are pinged to fix specific critical
issues works. And much more efficiently than waiting for bugs to
> Any approach that relies on people doing things when asked is doomed.
We actually had some experience ourself. In particular, I think
the release managed by Aleksey Gurtovoy (1.32.*) had such proactive approach,
and if I remember correctly, it worked good. I think 1.33.*, managed
by Doug Gregor was also more proactive.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk