From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-14 11:40:40
Beman Dawes wrote:
> 1.35.0 Release Candidate 1 is about to become available.
It would help me in testing the web site integration if those archives
followed the names of previous releases (both externally and
internally). Hence "boost_1_35_0.[zip|tar.gz|tar.bz2|7z" with the top
level dir of "boost_1_35_0". As otherwise I have to manually twiddle the
ZIP for use in the web site.
> How can we tell if a release candidate is good enough to ship? While the
> final decision will come down to a value judgment on the part of the
> release manager, after consulting with the list, it would be useful to
> know that obvious showstoppers like missing files aren't an issue.
> It seems to me that this need breaks down into two categories:
> * Checks that could be automated. Perhaps someone could write a script
> that downloads each of the packages (.bz2, .gz, .7z, .zip), unpacks
> them, and does some basic QA. For example, runs our inspect tool, and
> makes sure that the number of problems reported isn't greater than
> expected. Verifies certain files are present. You get the idea.
> * Checks that require human judgment. Perhaps we could have a check
> list. It would have to be limited to things that could be checked in a
> reasonable period of time. We can't expect volunteers to labor for many
> hours over each release candidate.
Not sure which of the those two you would put this into... But we need
to run the build/install for the variety of compilers and systems. This
is something that could be automated, and I had it automated at one
point using Buildbot. But that's something for next time ;-)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk