From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-30 01:23:19
Eric Niebler wrote:
> Mat Marcus wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>>> If the fixes are not critical enough to justify making a point release
>>>> than they should wait until the next release.
>>> So you're against hotfixes. <shrug> I would say, take the hotfix if you are
>>> experiencing the problem addressed by the hotfix. Otherwise, wait for the
>>> next release.
>> For some of us the answer is not <shrug>.
> That wasn't my answer. See above.
>> Are hotfixes really the way
>> forward? Not to pick on filesystem, threads or xpressive, but hotfixes
>> are a bit difficult to manage in a coporate environment. It's hard
>> enough to get boost accepted/updated without having to defend against
>> people who argue that it's too risky to use boost due to "inadequate
>> quality control" e.g. "boost 1.35.0 didn't work out of the box
>> (windows thread bugs, filesystem compilation errors, etc.), boost
>> 1.36.0 doesn't work out of the box
> 1.36.0 works out of the box. But I get your point.
>> , and there are no dot-releases
>> planned". It really helps if there is a perception of stable, high
>> quality, official, numbered releases.
> Understood. You want point releases. We don't have the resources right
> now. We are busy flushing the bugs out of a new release process that
> should give us quarterly releases. This is in response to feedback such
> as yours. Beman has said on this list that the issue of point releases
> will be reconsidered once we are meeting our quarterly release schedule.
> In the mean time, corporate users of Boost have a few options: (1)
> ignore hotfixes, (2) pay for support, (3) consider donating the testing
> resources we would need to produce point releases.
As I've already said, those "hotfixes" presently appear to be *totally untested*.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong -- just point me at a tables of test results
for 1.36.0 + hotfixes and I'll shut up. But if hotfixes are indeed untested,
then I don't understand why creating 1.36.1, which is basically 1.36.0 +
hotfixes in a single archive, would require *any testing resources at all*.
Can you clarify?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk