Thorsten, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I dno't like it.
Seriously, I don't like it either. I'd much rather have an updated range lib in 1.34 but time just ran out. Let me add some rationale. The reason the reason the range update will be postponed and some other last minute things weren't is the fact that a fair amount of stuff depends on range and at least one library author has raised concerns. So it's not simply an issue of try and revert if ti fails. Other libraries potentially loose stabilization time and might have to revert changes they made in case the range update is pulled. So there is a huge potential for delaying the whole process. So the trade-off is either delaying the range update or delaying future boost releases and thereby delaying updates to all other boost libs. In this case I don't think the issues in boost.range are serious enough to justify holding up everything else.
For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a freah-check out. Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong protocol for range conformance.
Can't we just roll-back to the current cvs if we cannot stabalize it within, say, a week?
This is possible taking a week or more out of a planned 4 week freeze period where things need to stabilize. We just don't have that time if we want more frequent releases. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org