On Nov 12, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost
On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases to consume downstream? Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?
No, I'm asking why is Boost trying to define its internal policies (pre-release naming scheme) so that downstream consumers are encouraged to use some pre-releases and discouraged to use others.
You are using the wrong tense here. Boost is not "trying to define”… Boost HAS defined … You’re presupposing that this RCx for the beta releases is something new. 10 seconds of searching on my part found an email titled: "[boost] [1.40.0] Beta 1 release candidate available” dated August 10, 2009.
To my mind, it is the downstream consumers' decision as to which releases to use or not. The only reasonable requirement on Boost should be to have stable official releases. Whether we have pre-releases, how many of them and how they are named is our convenience and a means to achieve the final stable release goal.
And if downstream consumers are interested in pre-releasses, I don't see why we should restrict them from using as many of the pre-releases as we make. This would only provide more testing and ultimately improve the quality of the final release.
They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the daily develop snapshots. When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re attempting to promise some modicum of quality. Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that. — Marshall