David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
However, a main motivation for this idea is the elimination of the need for "point release". If the "trunk" (HEAD in the current setup) is maintained in a releaseable state, any need for a "point release" would be addressed by just downloading the latest "releaseable" version.
No, it wouldn't. In many organizations, code stability is important. It can be prohibitive to accept the next releasable state and make all the local adjustments that go along with it.
Agreed. I have some code that is currently stuck with boost V1.32 because it uses boost.optional in a way that no longer works in V1.33. If I want to make use of any changes/bug fixes in the rest of boost from more recent versions, then I will either have to back-port them myself, rely on someone releasing V1.32.1, or deal with the boost.optional problems. If HEAD is always releasable, and always 100% backwards-compatible, then you don't need point releases. If there are breaking changes, then you might need point releases to support those customers who cannot accept the cost of change. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk