At 22:30 2006-01-25, Robert Ramey wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
I have doubts that we have the infrastructure in place that would be needed for this. This might be different once we switched to subversion.
I'm quite sure we don't have the infrastructure in place. My motivation is to to start a discussion that might result in movement to such an infrastructure. The last cycle lasted from july (initial projected release date)
I thought someone originally said release on April 15. btw, I notice we're planning on (again <sigh>) putting all the release stuff on a "tagged branch" then _manually_ changing all the regression test machines to test on the "release branch" with all the chaos that attends. I won't argue this time, I'll simply summarize. Leave the release stuff on the HEAD branch and tell developers who want to mess around with stuff that's NOT going to be in 1.34 to simply make their OWN branch and go work on it.
to november (release of 1.33.1) and was quite arduous. Each one is harder than the last. My point is that the process has to be re-thought.
Robert Ramey
Thanks
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"