Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-21 13:27:42
Boris Schaeling wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:55:14 +0100, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> > The point where that breaks down is where one library
>>> is found to have a fatal flaw shortly after a release, you
>>> wait 6 months (or whatever) for another version of boost
>>> which fixes the bug, but also breaks the API on a half-dozen
>>> other libraries you use.
>>> This is then really a problem with testing if such a
>>> disastrous bug slips through?
>> I think that it is terribly wrong assume that Boost can release any kind
>> of bug-free library even free from terrible, critical bugs that make
>> the library useless. It is programming world. There is no such thing like
>> bug free software. See UUID example...
> I would propose then to add a patch system to bjam? If bjam supported
> patches (in order not to depend on various tools on different operating
> systems) those who urgently need a fix wouldn't need to wait for the
> next official release?
Why would Boost.Build support patches? The procedure for making maintenance
release is pretty straigh-forward:
1. "svn merge -c" the fix to maintenance branch.
2. create a tarball/zip from the maintenance branch
If there's interest, I can actually do it.
[There's the problem that SF file release system is a bit convoluted and not-scriptable,
but we can bypass it completely, just like it's done for Boost.Build nightly builds]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk