Subject: Re: [boost] [1.48.0] Schedule discussion
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-20 16:14:25
On 20 June 2011 21:03, Christophe Henry
> I understand the theory, but I like the routine of planing in 3 months
> cycles. Uncomplicated and I know when the release branch is going to be
> closed when the calendar does not work.
> A release after 5 weeks is likely to force me to maintain 2 versions.
> Frankly, I'd have preferred to wait a week more and get Boost.Move into the
The release isn't after 5 weeks, the beta is. Including Boost.Move
would add more than a week's delay, our policy is to allow plenty of
time between adding a new library to the release branch and the beta.
That's why I was saying that we'd need to make sure new libraries are
ready to merge when the release branch opens.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk