From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-23 11:51:45
* Quarterly release schedule, with the target release date the 15th of
the first month of each quarter.
* If a release is late, that does not slip the date of the next
* If something isn't ready for the current release, it is simply held
until the next release. The current release is not delayed.
* Being ready means being ready by the cutoff date set by the release
manager. That will be relative early in the release cycle.
Regular releases that occur on a predictable schedule have many benefits:
* Developers know far in advance when library updates must be ready, and
that's both an aid to planning and a motivation to get stuff done.
* Users know far in advance when library updates will be ready, and that
helps their planning and reassures them of continuing support.
* Regularity creates a sense of quality and trust in Boost for both
developers and users.
Quarterly releases seem about right:
* It's often enough that the process will become smooth.
* It's often enough that developers won't feel pressure to release
* It's often enough that users will feel bug fixes and new libraries are
being released on a timely basis.
* It isn't so often that users will view Boost as unstable, particularly
given the predictable schedule.
* It isn't so often that developers and release managers will become
* A quarterly (or similar) schedule has been very successful for both
open source and commercial projects.
Comments? The rationale depends a lot on my personal experiences, but I
don't see that as a bad thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk