Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1.61.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-24 21:59:29
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir.prus_at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Second set of release candidates for 1.61.0 beta 1 are now available:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > The changes from RC1 are:
> > >
> > > * Top-level directory in the archive matches the name
> > >
> > So in the past the top level directory matched what we were going to
> > eventually release as the beta. E.G. we would have
> > boost_1_XX_0_b1_rcY.tar.bz which would contain the directory
> > boost_1_XX_0_b1 (a similar thing for releases, without the _b1). That way
> > once we have found a -rcY that everyone is happy with, we just need to
> > re-name the archives and push them to sourceforge.
> > Was it intentional that the directory within is "boost_1_61_0_b1_rc2"? If
> > so, does that mean that we will have to do a separate build (with
> > changes?!?!) when we move from our last rc to the beta release?
> It was not intentional. I just wasn't aware of the naming. We could do a
> new build. Though that's easy and repeatable as it's done by the CI system
> now. But we could also just unpack/rename/repack.
I think the unpack/rename/repack option could be ok this time, but for the
future, it seems like we'd want the system to perform a build where we can
simply rename the archive and upload. (For beta and release).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk