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

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 07:31:48

>>>>> soon.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> I'd take that as a yes. As long as you've asked on the development
> list with a clear subject line, then you've given the community
> sufficient opportunity to say otherwise. 

well, to me getting no reply, means neither yes nor no, but more a
`don't know' or `don't care' ... but the question is, how to disable the
library for non-c++11 compilers? e.g. shall the tests fail or be
disabled, shall the library print a warning?

> If you're not happy with
> this, then maybe ask on the steering committee list? (Although, they
> might not be happy with me for saying that....)

well, i was not aware that there is a separate list for the steering
committee, was under the impression that the discussions about the boost
development takes place on the boost-dev list ...

>> * there is no policy about c++11 libraries, so i cannot merge
>>  boost.lockfree into trunk by cutting the boost.atomic dependency
> 
> No, as long as your review manager is happy, you have every right to
> add your library to *trunk* and it really is advisable to do so.

hartmut?

>> * 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 ....
> 
> Sure, I'm sympathetic as it sounds like you've been left in the lurch.
> I don't know how the other release managers would feel about it though
> so I can't promise anything.

please don't understand me wrong, i don't want to push the library for
1.51 (nor did i do that for 1.50 when i raised that question in the
first place) ... it took two years between review request and review and
the review took place during last year's summer of code ... i simply
don't want to wait for another three years

tim