On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:37:24 -0400, David Abrahams wrote

Boost.Graph changes have caused plenty of regressions in Boost.Python in the past. Sorry, I thougth that this would be a pretty good example of a high level library. So I was wrong.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:33:26 -0400, David Abrahams wrote

We should have more releases. Waiting for libraries to be checked in is one thing that keeps us from being able to release more frequently. Yes, but if I have the choice of waiting one additional week for the check in of an accepted library against waiting 2 month for the next release I would choose to wait that additional week. However, I have read in one of the other mails that you have a deadline with your book. So live is not that simple at all. I won't persist on changing the planned schedule. Don't get me wrong.

It sounds like you want a whole new Boost procedure for reviews *and* releases. That seems like a stretch; we don't have any idea whether it would work at all. No, I merely think that a library should be accepted when it is ready for checkin and there is not a list of changes and request pending.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:34:22 -0400, David Abrahams wrote

...

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:51:36 +0200, Johannes Brunen wrotes We should list them on the lib page but in a special section. I don't like the sound of that. It should be very clear to people which things are part of Boost and which aren't. Ok, I second that. If it not clear for people what is part of boost then it is the wrong way. People should be able to build on a boost release.

With kind regards Johannes