Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Reminder: Boost Master branch will close for the 1.65.0 release on Wednesday
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-01 09:12:36

On 1 August 2017 at 09:26, Andrey Semashev via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 08/01/17 09:31, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost wrote:
>> El 31/07/2017 a las 19:41, Stefan Seefeld via Boost escribió:
>>> [I think it would be much simpler for everyone involved if each project
>>> kept its own release notes (perhaps in the `meta/` subdirectory ?)
>> +1. Of course that means someone has to volunteer to do the integration
>> script from
>> meta/release_notes.json :-/
> I'd rather not use JSON for this as it lacks any means of markup.

It's also quite an error prone format. If there's an error in the
metadata I just open a pull request to fix it, but that would too slow
for updating release notes, which are often written at the last

I can see other problems with a more distributed approach. We'd lose
the ability to edit release notes, which we do on occasion, and pull
requests also make it easier to track changes as someone has to
approve them. It wouldn't be clear which module branch to use, master
seems the obvious choice, but it couldn't be used when master is
frozen. And changes to the release notes after a release could also be

It would also require everyone to write their own release notes.
Sometimes people email me if they don't want to write quickbook markup

> Frankly, I'm quite fine with creating PRs for the website. This approach
> worked well for me for years.

But this is the key point. It's working better than I expected, and
better than a lot of the other things.

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