Olaf van der Spek-3 wrote
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@> wrote:
Olaf van der Spek-3 wrote
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:25 AM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@> wrote:
It would be for ScopeExit, LocalFunction, OverloadedFunction, and IdentityType because these libraries have been ready for a while (regression tested on all compilers, reviewed by managers and other library authors, etc). I didn't merge them into release simply because I was think I still had time and I had been busy at work in the last 2 weeks (I and Vicente asked for a 1.50 release date a few times more than 3 weeks ago but got no answer, not the release was closed the same day it was announced). I put a lot of effort into getting these libraries ready, they are ready, not to include them in 1.50 because of a miss-communication invalidates a large part of the effort I put into developing and testing this libraries...
Isn't that exaggerated? They could go into 1.51.
My point is that a truly put a lot of effort to meet the 1.50 target and that is slipping away for miss-communication, which is rather unfortunate.
Yes, the communication is bad. But the target for major merges is the begin of the release cycle, not the end.
It's OK, I guess. While I read all the guidelines on the Boost site, I'm just left with learning the process the hard way :) If when Vicente and I asked for a release date 3+ weeks ago someone had said "don't know when we'll close release but your new libs should be merged ASAP because you already passed the begin of the release cycle time", that would have at least hinted the current situation and I'd have taken appropriate actions... Getting no reply instead, gave me no clue. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/1-50-0-Beta-schedule-tp4630328p4630410.ht... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.