From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-10-23 20:22:02
On 2019-10-23 4:13 p.m., Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> I think the GitHub milestones situation needs to be clarified now.
> Currently, there are two milestones:
> - "Boost 1.72" (3 items)
> - "Boost 1.72+" (57 items)
> I had not expected to release the GSoC work with 1.72,
> so all the GSoC PRs are assigned to "Boost 1.72+".
> Since we have decided to make the release, then we will
> release all the work that is assigned to both milestones.
> It means, the two milestones should be merged into one "Boost 1.72".
> It also means that (subjects of) the PRs of the combined "Boost 1.72"
> milestone can make it into GIL release notes for the Boost 1.72 release.
> Does it make sense, do we agree? Stefan?
I'm still a bit confused about the current situation: it seems there are
a few unfinished bits and pieces, which we don't expect to be able to
wrap up in time for the upcoming release. (Note that the 30th of October
is the deadline for *major* changes only. So if we merge all we have
now, we should still have time for minor fixes and improvements after
that. But no pressure, I can't judge how much work is missing to wrap
everything up, and how much risk these changes would cause.)
I still think that we should release what we have as early as possible.
And given that what we are talking about are new APIs, not changes to
existing APIs, I doubt it will be a big problem if we apply minor
changes to those APIs in the next release. It will take time for new
users to adopt the new APIs anyhow, and if we mark the API in our docs
as "experimental" as well as "subject to change", I think that would be
In other words, my current thinking is: let's merge what we have even if
it's not entirely stable or complete. Then let's focus on documentation,
making sure the relevant pieces are documented as "experimental"
Does that make sense ?
> As soon as we agree that we are on the same page, I will merge the two
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by Boost-Gil-Owners