Re: [Boost-cmake] Including patches other than cmake (was: 1.40.0.cmake3)

Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Including patches other than cmake (was: 1.40.0.cmake3)
From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-28 11:20:23

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Vladimir Prus
<vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 Daniel James wrote:
>
>> 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?

No, but we haven't managed so far.

> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

I never liked that myself. I think it was considered better as we
wouldn't have to deal with building the documentation, running release
scripts etc.

> It might be worth to restart that discussion.

Maybe, you could bring it up on the main list. The biggest obstacle is
probably finding someone to take charge.

Daniel