Boost logo

Boost :

From: Mat Marcus (mat-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-30 17:32:33

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> With apologies for the sales message: my company's Enterprise Support
> program offers the closest possible equivalent of point releases for
> Boost. We might be able to help you.

Thanks for the note, Dave. I'm afraid that I didn't make my point very
clearly. I am not looking for support for boost, nor am I in
particularly in favor of dot-releases, except when necessary. I'm
concerned about the boost "brand" and the perceived quality of the
officially released versions. What gives me trouble is when I lobby
for groups to upgrade to 1.35.0 and they pushback saying that no one
should upgrade since there's a "serious runtime bug in windows
threads" or "filesystem doesn't even compile". If such claims are
accurate then I would have expect some action to be taken (beyond
"wait for the next release", or "seek out the appropriate experimental
hotfix"). One approach would be to produce a dot release. No doubt
there are other approaches.

Reliability, especially for mature core components, trumps new
features when it comes to proliferating boost in our environment. My
posts can be viewed as one data point that the perception of
world-class reliability has weakened a bit in 1.35.0. I haven't worked
with 1.36.0 long enough to know whether this was a one-time fluke.

 - Mat

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at