From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-31 01:42:57
Eric Niebler wrote:
>> 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?
> You raise a fair point. My feeling is we couldn't in good faith issue an
> official point release without testing it. Hotfixes aren't (yet)
> official Boost releases and so meet a different criteria. That's a weak
> justification, but considering that we have limited resources, it seems
> like a good-faith effort to quickly get fixes into hands of users that
> need them.
> Perhaps we need a bold disclaimer stating that hotfixes are not official
> Boost releases and that buyer beware.
Why we can call hotfixes "unofficial" and cannot call an archive file unofficial?
We can even give it a name such as 1.36.unofficial-hotfixes-1 to make it absolutely
clear. While I can understand why we cannot do regular testing on hotfix release
due to resource constraints, why making hotfixes as hard to get as possible?
Put yourself in a position of a user -- you have "official" 1.36.0 which is known
to have serious issues, and you have "unofficial" hotfixes -- how does one
decide which one to use? If we believe that 1.36.0+hotfixes is actually better
than 1.36.0, then it's official position, and should be expressed explicitly.
If we truly believe that 1.36.0+hotfixes is high-risk combination, then should
we actually provide hotfixes?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk