From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-16 14:49:12
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey:
>> Here is where we differ. Now when someone checks in a breaking
>> change. errors pop up all over the place in test results that the
>> author who caused the problem doesn't have any reason to check.
>> He who has had his library broken has to investigate the cause
>> of the sudden breakage and trace down to its source and then
>> complain. This is a huge pain in the neck and costs a lot of
>> time and frustration.
> What's the alternative? In Boost release 1.36, libfoo 1.36 has to work
> against Boost 1.36, not Boost 1.35.
In my view it should work against both. If not there's a bug.
> Testing it only against Boost 1.35
> allows one to be smug and claim that any failures aren't one's fault,
LOL - well there is that. But note that I'm not suggesting that
this be the only testing done.
> but doesn't help the release process.
> Trunk does, by testing tentative libfoo 1.36 against tentative Boost
> Sort of.
Exactly. That's my complaint about it.
One reason my proposal isn't as clear as it should be is
that the current concempt of 1.35, 1.36 would be a little blurred.
Given a "release ready version" which is used for testing and
ready for release when the quarter comes aroud effectively
means that there is a release 1.35.1, 135.2, 135.3 .... each
time a tested library is merged in. The only thing special
about the 1.36 release is that it would be packaged in a more
complete form , tarball, etc.