Re: [boost] Re: 1.32 release preparation
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30:20 -0700, Jeff Garland wrote:
As much as I'd like to see circular_buffer, serialization, etc in this release I'd rather see us pull off a release that doesn't take 2-3 months to accomplish. I believe we should hold the line on the schedule now and anything that isn't ready should simply go in the next release. I disagree on that. We don't have that many Boost releases. Waiting for the next one could be a long time. Therefore, I propose to wait until all (or as many as possibly considering a reasonable time schedule) accepeted libraries will be checked into CVS and be part of the release.
And if there are a large number of new things left out by that approach then we should plan another release sooner rather than waiting 4 months. However, then you need new volunteers which have to spend the time for the whole procedure again.
One is that we have been reviewing and accepting a large number of libraries recently. So, many of these have been accepted in the last couple months. The other thing that seems to be a pattern is that libraries get accepted, then authors get a list of changes to make. I could think of a review process which accepts a library only after the list of requested changes has beem made.
If they get busy it often takes months to get these done and then finally they check into CVS. So a release tends to trigger the evaluation of anything that is in that multi-month pipeline. That isn't good. I would prefere a review process which leads to final acceptance only after a library is 'CVS' compatible i.e. does not yield to any (known) regressions of the existing pool libraries and is equipted with a working testing facility.
With best regards Johannes
"Johannes Brunen" <jbrunen@datasolid.de> writes:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30:20 -0700, Jeff Garland wrote:
As much as I'd like to see circular_buffer, serialization, etc in this release I'd rather see us pull off a release that doesn't take 2-3 months to accomplish. I believe we should hold the line on the schedule now and anything that isn't ready should simply go in the next release.
I disagree on that. We don't have that many Boost releases. Waiting for the next one could be a long time. Therefore, I propose to wait until all (or as many as possibly considering a reasonable time schedule) accepeted libraries will be checked into CVS and be part of the release.
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.
And if there are a large number of new things left out by that approach then we should plan another release sooner rather than waiting 4 months.
However, then you need new volunteers which have to spend the time for the whole procedure again.
One is that we have been reviewing and accepting a large number of libraries recently. So, many of these have been accepted in the last couple months. The other thing that seems to be a pattern is that libraries get accepted, then authors get a list of changes to make.
I could think of a review process which accepts a library only after the list of requested changes has beem made.
If they get busy it often takes months to get these done and then finally they check into CVS. So a release tends to trigger the evaluation of anything that is in that multi-month pipeline.
That isn't good. I would prefere a review process which leads to final acceptance only after a library is 'CVS' compatible i.e. does not yield to any (known) regressions of the existing pool libraries and is equipted with a working testing facility.
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. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
participants (8)
-
David Abrahams -
Johannes Brunen