Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 06:56:31

Tim Blechmann wrote:
>
> >> what's the policy for c++11-only libraries?
> >
> > I don't know. I guess the main issue is if it will be
> > adequately supported by our testers.
>
> me neither ... i guess no one knows, because i've asked this
> question before without getting any reply.

Unfortunately, cannot admit a library -- into a release -- that isn't being tested, so you need C++11 testers.  However, that doesn't prevent you from putting it into trunk.

> >> i could make boost.lockfree depend on std::atomic to avoid
> >> that it will have to wait for boost.atomic forever.

That's a reasonable tack.

> > It isn't in trunk yet, so I'm not sure if you'll have enough
> > time for 1.51. The deadline is very tight. You'll really
> > have to get in and the tests running straight away, and you
> > still might not have enough time unless it goes very
> > smoothly (the testers aren't that frequent, I'm afraid).

Note that only means you may not get it into 1.51; it doesn't preclude putting it in trunk.

> well, i must admit, i'm kind of upset by the situation:
>
> * boost.atomic seems to be dead, at least helge does not
>   respond anymore and the library will probably be obsolete,
>   because once it is merged, all compilers will support
>   std::atomic

That's unfortunate.  There will be many using C++03 for years yet.

> * there is no policy about c++11 libraries, so i cannot merge
>   boost.lockfree into trunk by cutting the boost.atomic
>   dependency

Don't take this as policy, but I don't see any problem with adding a C++11-only library if your code is conditionally compiled to avoid problems with C++03 compilers (which could mean no code for those compilers).  Trying to do so may reveal issues with config, but that will be helpful.

> * merging boost.lockfree now is too late, for the next
>   release, as it is not in trunk because of the reasons
>   mentioned above. well, it is not like it could introduce any
>   regressions ....

If you put it in trunk, C++11 testers are spun up, and tests go well, you might make 1.51.  If there's insufficient time, try again for 1.52.  Either way, keep seeking C++11 testers!

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     using std::disclaimer;
Dev Tools & Components
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

________________________________

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.