Subject: [boost] [release management] Draft policy for changes between beta and release
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-23 10:11:22
In another post, John Maddock asked what sort of QA problems should be
fixed between the beta and final releases, and what the criteria and
Here is a quick draft of a possible policy:
* Showstoppers. Criteria: Bugs or other problems so serious that the
release is seriously compromised if not fixed. Procedure: After
discussion on the developers list, release managers will specify how the
problem is to be attacked, and what effect it will have on schedule.
* Documentation and other minor fixes not affecting code. Criteria:
Changes not requiring regression testing and unlikely to impact other
libraries. Procedure: Merges to branches/release are OK, after fix
applied to trunk, and do not require a release manager's permission.
* Minor code fixes. Criteria: Changes believed to have limited risk and
that have already been made to trunk and are stable on trunk regression
testing. Procedure: Merges to branches/release after fix stable on trunk
tests do not require a release manager's permission.
* Questionable code fixes. Criteria: Any code changes not meeting the
"Minor code fix" criteria, such as a change with a lot of possible
ripple effect on other libraries. Procedure: Ask release managers for
* Tools changes and fixes. Code changes to bjam, Boost.Build,
Boost.Test, the doc build process, and other tools are discouraged late
in release cycles in general and between beta and release in particular.
Ask release managers for permission if you really think the change is
warranted for this release.
* New features, breaking changes, major reworks, new libraries. These
are not suitable for merging between beta and release. Wait until the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk