Re: [boost] [1.43][beta] Fix for MPL under gcc 4.5

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.43][beta] Fix for MPL under gcc 4.5
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-23 22:48:15

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:21:40 -0500, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 23 April 2010 04:29, Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:10:30 -0500, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> >>
>>> The release process is quite different now. It seems to me that the
>>> focus is to get a regular release with the more modest goal of being
>>> an incremental improvement, rather than an 'all green' release.
>>
>> Like Robert, I don't see a conflict here. The "all green" part is  
>> exactly
>> about incremental improvement: it says "this release is not worse than  
>> the
>> previous one, except for these known issues". It was simply a concise,
>> objective, easy-to-track and easy-to-explain criterion to keep us on
>> track towards that goal.
>
> I didn't claim that it conflicts, just that it isn't a requirement for
> incremental improvement

IMO it is if you actually want to be objective about it rather than just
guestimate.

> and that it slows down releases

If you mean sometimes not releasing on the cut-off date, yes it does, as
would any form of quality guarantee vs cut-off release date. But then
you can't actually claim incremental improvement with the
no-matter-what cut-off release date, can you?

> and increases work for the release managers.

Yes, it does, although I personally disagree with the implication that
the increase is inherently substantial, is solely responsible for the
unbearably long past release cycles, or is too much of a price to pay
for the benefit of being able to say to users "yes, you can upgrade"
with any sort of confidence and facts to back it up.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering