Re: [boost] [1.50.0] RELEASE BRANCH REOPENED (was: Beta schedule)

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.50.0] RELEASE BRANCH REOPENED (was: Beta schedule)
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-23 21:39:58

lcaminiti wrote
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Done. I will be watching the release regression tests very closely for the
next few days.

Thanks a lot.
--Lorenzo

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-50-0-Beta-schedule-tp4630328p4630450.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.