I had originally intended to feature-freeze tomorrow, but instead we're going to wait one extra week. We have 611 regressions and ~2700 new failures on the main trunk. Let's see if we can get that number down a bit :) Thanks, Doug
Douglas Gregor wrote:
I had originally intended to feature-freeze tomorrow, but instead we're going to wait one extra week.
We have 611 regressions and ~2700 new failures on the main trunk. Let's see if we can get that number down a bit :)
That's the point of feature-freeze. You stop adding features and start subtracting bugs. You most definitely do not delay a feature-freeze because of bugs.
On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Douglas Gregor wrote:
I had originally intended to feature-freeze tomorrow, but instead we're going to wait one extra week.
We have 611 regressions and ~2700 new failures on the main trunk. Let's see if we can get that number down a bit :)
That's the point of feature-freeze. You stop adding features and start subtracting bugs. You most definitely do not delay a feature-freeze because of bugs.
Clearly. But with a rather impressive number of Boosters here at the C++ committee meeting, I thought I'd give us another week before we lock it down. And for everyone that's already gotten their features in, I hope that 611 and 2700 are motivating numbers :) Doug
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Douglas Gregor wrote:
I had originally intended to feature-freeze tomorrow, but instead we're going to wait one extra week.
We have 611 regressions and ~2700 new failures on the main trunk. Let's see if we can get that number down a bit :)
That's the point of feature-freeze. You stop adding features and start subtracting bugs. You most definitely do not delay a feature-freeze because of bugs.
Clearly. But with a rather impressive number of Boosters here at the C++ committee meeting, I thought I'd give us another week before we lock it down.
Disagree. But it's your call.
participants (1)
-
Douglas Gregor -
Peter Dimov