Boost logo

Boost Interest :

Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Including patches other than cmake (was: 1.40.0.cmake3)
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-28 02:42:22

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 Daniel James wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Ingmar Vanhassel <ingmar_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like it should be handled by boost upstream, or by ones
> > distributor.
> A lot of boost users don't have a distributor and we don't have the
> resources to do it ourselves.

Are you sure about the last part? It does not seem that the proposal here
is to create patch releases that get the same amount of testing that "official"
releases get. If no, there's pretty small overhead regardless of the used
version control system.

I think we had this discussion on the Boost mailing list some time ago, when
a boost release came with a serious issue in one of the libraries, and "hotfix"
patch was made available. For some reason, release + hotfix was considered better
than a patch release with the same amount of testing. It might be worth to
restart that discussion.

- Volodya

Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at