Re: Boost.Beast state of play

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-03 20:00:24

On 7/3/20 9:45 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

> 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.

LOL erroneously? - one is allowed to name names.

As one who tests against master for reasons I've specified elsewhere,  I 
should say:

a) I almost never find bugs/unannounced changes in the master API.
b) But truth is, I generally pull from the master branch only when I'm 
about to check my own code into the master.

So I'm not providing much feedback as things mostly work by the time 
they get checked into the master.

> 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.

+1

The current setup works well and decouples one's development from the 
release schedule.  We should continue to rely on that.

Robert Ramey