From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-03 16:45:48
Niall Douglas wrote:
> It's funny how Boost.ASIO has suddenly gone from being a very, very
> conservative flavour of standalone ASIO, typically trailing by a few major
> versions, to where "the stable branch" is code literally written new in
> the last few weeks, and with a major rearchitecture to boot.
> In the end, each library maintainer gets to make that call for their own
In principle we have a three-tiered procedure of rolling out API changes:
1. Update develop
This gets feedback from other Boost library developers who depend on the API
and test against the develop branch.
2. Update master
This is supposed to get feedback from outside users who track master in
order to not be surprised by the release, but in practice, no such people
seem to exist, so it mostly gets feedback from Boost library developers who
erroneously test against master.
3. Get a release out
This gets feedback from everyone else.
Theoretically, (1) should happen at some point during release cycle N-1, (2)
happens in the beginning of release cycle N, and (3) happens at the end of
release cycle N.
In practice though, not much is gained by spreading them out. Most of the
world doesn't care unless changes go out in a release.
I'd still call the above schedule "best practice" though; or if not that,
its compressed form where (1) is at beginning of N, (2) is in the middle.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk