Subject: Re: [boost] next version dates
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-18 15:43:53
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 18 April 2011 14:56, Thomas Heller <thom.heller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> More communication to the library developers would be appreciated!
> I wrote an email suggesting that we should decide on a schedule
> quickly, I didn't receive a response for 5 days. That gives the
> opposite impression.
We proposed an alternative schedule ...
>> We worked hard to get Phoenix V3 ready for release within our proposed dates.
>> There was neither conformal nor denial whether these dates were good.
> I think I was pretty clear that nothing was happening.
... which apparently has been misinterpreted. So it was a
misunderstanding on both sides.
In any case, we tried hard to keep the deadline we proposed.
But you are right ... apart from our queries there wasn't anything else.
>> And suddenly
>> the current state is considered not release worthy ...
>> I am disappointed by this information policy.
> A release takes time to prepare. At least a month given the desire for
> longer beta periods. Since we haven't started, it's unlikely that
> we've got enough time for a release before boostcon.
>> I would like to see at least a beta version of 1.47 before boostcon so
>> people who are
>> listening to talks can actually download and try the code we are presenting.
> This is the first time I've heard that, I was under the impression
> that it could wait for the next release cycle, which would be after
Right, its the first time you hear, because we waited (like you
suggested) for the
next officially proposed release schedule.
Which didn't came until someone else asked.
Additionaly, if you read our proposed schedule again, you might notice
that it would
have been just in time for boostcon. The part about having it in the
release cycle would
have been the back plan if you, the release managers would have said:
"Ok let us release
So, if I had known that the schedule would have been postponed so long
... it would
have saved me a lot of trouble.
So, who is responsible for making the schedule?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk