Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.50.0] RELEASE BRANCH REOPENED (was: Beta schedule)
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-23 16:57:16

Beman Dawes wrote
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:45 AM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@> wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:55 AM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@> wrote:
>>>> Daniel James-3 wrote
>>>>> On 22 May 2012 23:46, Eric Niebler <eric@> wrote:
>>>>>> Look for an email from us shortly. I'm taking it upon myself to
>>>>>> reopen
>>>>>> the release branch for BUG FIXES ONLY (no new libraries). Please get
>>>>>> your changes in as soon as is convenient and prudent. It should be
>>>>>> open
>>>>>> for at least a week. Then we'll require release manager approval.
>>>>>> Please
>>>>>> be sure trunk tests are clean before merging anything, as usual.
>>>>> I added a 'release branch closed' event to the calendar for next
>>>>> Monday, which is a little less than a week, but we normally do these
>>>>> things on Mondays. This is in no way final (I just picked a date), and
>>>>> might be changed later.
>>>> To confirm, does this mean that release is open for merging, including
>>>> new
>>>> features, until next Monday?
>>> "BUG FIXES ONLY" does not include new features.
>>> You can ask for permission to merge a new feature. If it has been
>>> stable in trunk for awhile and is otherwise low risk, then we may OK a
>>> merge. But we are playing catch up for a release that was supposed to
>>> be done at the beginning of the month, so are trying to avoid anything
>>> that will result in further delays.
>> Do I have permission to merge ScopeExit (improved), LocalFunction (new),
>> Funcitonal/OverloadedFunction (new), and Utility/IdentityType (new)? If
>> so,
>> I can do that within today.
>> I'm answering your questions below from another email to assess the risk.
>>> It is an issue of risk. How long have these changes/refactorings been
>>> stable in trunk?
>> 1+ month.
>>> How extensive were the changes?
>> ScopeExit ("small" library) 20% new but all old regressions plus all new
>> regressions pass.
>> LocalFunction ("small/mid-size" library), OverloadedFunction ("small"
>> library), and IdentityType ("tiny" library) 100% new.
>>> Were the changes fragile or once they worked on your development
>>> platform,
>>> did they pass all tests on other platforms?
>> Regressions passed on all compilers with little efforts after they passed
>> on
>> MSVC and GCC on my development platform. Sun, and a little bit VACPP plus
>> PGI, were the only compilers that required some amount of extra work. All
>> of
>> this was done 1+ month ago in trunk. That applies to all ScopeExit,
>> LocalFunction, OverloadedFunciton, and IdentityType.
>>> Have you done a local merge to release, and tested the results?
>> Yes. I tested on MSVC 8.0, GCC 4.5.3 without and without C++11 feature
>> (that's my development platform). The tests pass on my development
>> platform
>> for release as they do for trunk.
>> Please advice.
> That sounds OK to me; you have the risks pretty well covered. Several
> other release managers are also in favor of a go ahead, so please
> merge to release ASAP and keep a close eye on the release regression
> tests.

Will do. I'll merge by tonight.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at