Re: [boost] Will 1.45 incorporate active regression tickets?

Subject: Re: [boost] Will 1.45 incorporate active regression tickets?
From: Jim Bell (Jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-01 13:45:36

On 1:59 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Jim Bell wrote:
>> On 1:59 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2010 08:11 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>>> ... elision by patrick >8 ...
>>>> While I'm not a release manager, I looked at a few of them; and I'm
>>>> wondering if there's a disagreement here about what constitutes a
>>>> "regression".
>>>>
>>>> To me, that means that the code has "regressed", or gotten worse.
>>>> Something that worked in a previous release no longer works - that's
>>>> a "regression"
>>> You're right.   It has two common meanings in bugs:
>>>
>>> 1) a trend or shift toward a lower or less perfect state[...]
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> All bugs are bugs whether they're regressions or not.
>> I was defining it more tangibly as yellow on the regression matrix, but,
>> yes, that could be from something going from green to yellow (your
>> definition) or something going from not-being-there-before to yellow
>> (i.e., a new platform).
>>
>> Could someone nail down the definition in the appropriate place (Wiki)?
>> This would be important for the new wave of volunteers being discussed.
> I would be happy to - once I'm sure that we're all in agreement.

I don't insist that anything on the regression matrix must be called
'regression', but does an unexplained failure on the regression matrix
deserve special attention? I think so, as unfair as that is when new
platforms are added. It's something we *know should* work.