Subject: Re: [boost] [1.41.0] Release branch open for merges
From: Richard Newman (richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-04 13:10:35
From our perspective as long-time Boost users, the new release schedule
is much more palatable and better supports our production development
cycles. Boost has made tremendous strides in its adoptability just
because of the quarterly release heartbeat. Our compliments to everyone
involved in making this work so well over the last several releases: I
know this take a lot of attention and dedication to pull off well.
Just a brief comment, I agree that "every 3 months" is a better ideal
(an ideal ideal?), in part because it counters longer than intended
release cycles and helps assure that the average cycle is quarterly even
if it must reasonably be missed now and again. Plus short cycles after
long (and presumably more involved) cycles help make sure valuable
"maintenance oriented" occasionally occur.
On 9/4/2009 8:58 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Robert Ramey<ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hmmm - might we change the release schedule policy from "every three months"
>> to "three months after the previously release" ? It would seem more
>> sensible to me since the time between last merge to the shipping has been
>> reduced to a couple of weeks. The important thing is for uses to know that
>> if he has a problem and reports it (and maybe nags about it) he might get a
>> fix in the next 3 months.
> Since 1.40.0 was almost a month late, I did consider scheduling 1.41.1
> three months from ship date. While there weren't any killer reasons
> for not doing that, there were several softer arguments in favor of
> keeping to the regular schedule:
> * Experience in the past (on another project) with keeping to a
> quarterly schedule even if one quarter slipped seemed to show that
> there were less schedule slips if the quarterly schedule was
> maintained. Perhaps there was less tendency to slip if it meant having
> to catch up next quarter.
> * The current schedule, particularly for the November and February 1st
> target dates, fits well with US holidays and personal commitments I
> have every year. It is very hard for me (and a lot of other folks) to
> schedule anything between mid-November and Mid-January, and
> March/April also tend to have a lot of commitments for me.
>> BTW - Is there a consensus that this release procedure is a huge improvement
>> over the previous one?
> It is a huge improvement from my viewpoint:-)
>> What are the current obstacles to making it easier?
> I'll try to address that in a separate message.
> Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk