20 Jun
2011
20 Jun
'11
8:14 p.m.
On 20 June 2011 21:03, Christophe Henry <christophe.j.henry@googlemail.com> wrote:
I understand the theory, but I like the routine of planing in 3 months cycles. Uncomplicated and I know when the release branch is going to be closed when the calendar does not work. A release after 5 weeks is likely to force me to maintain 2 versions. Frankly, I'd have preferred to wait a week more and get Boost.Move into the 1.47.
The release isn't after 5 weeks, the beta is. Including Boost.Move would add more than a week's delay, our policy is to allow plenty of time between adding a new library to the release branch and the beta. That's why I was saying that we'd need to make sure new libraries are ready to merge when the release branch opens.