"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46646B35.5050709@gmail.com...
Thomas Witt wrote:
Hi,
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
I was going to write this email, but Doug beat me to it.
And I guess you both beat me to it... As I was busy spending all my free time trying to fix bugs for 1.34.1. Although what's below are not my only thoughts on the release procedure...
The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.
Which particular part?
AFAICT the it also mandates increasing the testing and release management tools pipeline. And this is something we just don't have the resources to implement at this time. And likely wont have them in the next 6 months. In this respect I find the proposal contradictory. It both says that the tool chain needs to be simplified, at the cost of features, and calls for more tools.
I agree with most of Beman's write-up, but it pre-supposes a robust testing system for Boost that just doesn't exist.
It also pre-supposes a "stable" starting point for ongoing releases. First 1.34.1, will not be such a release. Second, it will take at least 6 months to make a clean and stable release, and that's without adding new libraries. Third, IMO to make a clean, stable, robust 1.35 following the proposal would take more than a year.
Can we get strait to the point? What is required to make stable release? (Complete list) Why 1.34.0 is not stable?
We will not ship 1.35.0 within the next year if we do major surgery to our directory structure. It's just not going to happen.
There are two other aspect to 1.35.0 that I'm trying to address. In another thread, I raised the question of svn dir structure. And it devolved into the same aspects that this thread devolved to, discussing how to split the sources up as much as possible based on libraries. This is fine, but it doesn't get us any closer to managing the structure we currently have. We need to concentrate on making this simpler first!
I believe spliting the directory structure will our life way simple in many prospectives. What complications do you see?
Which brings up the second item, the website. One of the simplifications for releases is to separate the website content from the release itself. (that was my rant)
Yes. I believe this is the way to go. Gennadiy