Boost logo

Boost :

From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-12 20:57:54

On Nov 12, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
>>> to consume downstream?
>> Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?
> No, I'm asking why is Boost trying to define its internal policies (pre-release naming scheme) so that downstream consumers are encouraged to use some pre-releases and discouraged to use others.

You are using the wrong tense here.

        Boost is not "trying to define”…
        Boost HAS defined …

You’re presupposing that this RCx for the beta releases is something new.
10 seconds of searching on my part found an email titled: "[boost] [1.40.0] Beta 1 release candidate available” dated August 10, 2009.

> To my mind, it is the downstream consumers' decision as to which releases to use or not. The only reasonable requirement on Boost should be to have stable official releases. Whether we have pre-releases, how many of them and how they are named is our convenience and a means to achieve the final stable release goal.
> And if downstream consumers are interested in pre-releasses, I don't see why we should restrict them from using as many of the pre-releases as we make. This would only provide more testing and ultimately improve the quality of the final release.

They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the daily develop snapshots.
When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re attempting to promise some modicum of quality.

Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that.

— Marshall

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