Eric Niebler wrote:
But if hotfixes are indeed untested, then I don't understand why creating 1.36.1, which is basically 1.36.0 + hotfixes in a single archive, would require *any testing resources at all*.
Can you clarify?
You raise a fair point. My feeling is we couldn't in good faith issue an official point release without testing it. Hotfixes aren't (yet) official Boost releases and so meet a different criteria. That's a weak justification, but considering that we have limited resources, it seems like a good-faith effort to quickly get fixes into hands of users that need them.
Perhaps we need a bold disclaimer stating that hotfixes are not official Boost releases and that buyer beware.
Why we can call hotfixes "unofficial" and cannot call an archive file unofficial? We can even give it a name such as 1.36.unofficial-hotfixes-1 to make it absolutely clear. While I can understand why we cannot do regular testing on hotfix release due to resource constraints, why making hotfixes as hard to get as possible? Put yourself in a position of a user -- you have "official" 1.36.0 which is known to have serious issues, and you have "unofficial" hotfixes -- how does one decide which one to use? If we believe that 1.36.0+hotfixes is actually better than 1.36.0, then it's official position, and should be expressed explicitly. If we truly believe that 1.36.0+hotfixes is high-risk combination, then should we actually provide hotfixes? - Volodya