"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4664821B.5060506@sympatico.ca...
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
* Bugs attributed 1.34.0 <http://tinyurl.com/2cn7g6>, and only a small number of them are targeted for 1.34.1.
I see only 6 bugs assigned to 1.34.1. To be frank with you I don't see why do we need to hurry with releasing them.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Why these bugs are assigned to 1.34.1 ? Because they are regressions / showstoppers that have the highest priority.
284 pool::purge_memory() does not reset next_size assigned shammah Bugs Boost 1.34.1 None 958 [doc] The "Getting Started" page mentions incorrect library names new dave Bugs Boost 1.34.1 Building Boost 964 [filesystem] missing documentation or bad links new -- Bugs Boost 1.34.1 filesystem 965 [doc] boost::variant tutorial - final example uses v1,v2 should be seq1,seq2 assigned ebf Bugs Boost 1.34.1 variant 982 x64 documentation for windows new -- Support Requests Boost 1.34.1 Building Boost 991 [pool] new -- Bugs Boost 1.34.1 None ' Which of these are showstoppers?
Or why the people aren't focusing on 1.35 now ? (I guess because it's always more fun to focus on features an not bug fixes.) Etc.
Why don't we fix'em in 1.35?
* We don't test the build and install process.
What do you want to test? In any case it doesn't make release "unstable"
The release (well, in fact, packaging) process was retarded because a substantial number of bugs only turned up during that very last phase, simply because that wasn't tested at all. Had packaging (etc.) be part of the regular testing procedure those bugs weren't present, at that time in the release process.
I guess it would be nice. Do you know how implement these tests in practice (I mean without human involvement)? In any case This problem is separate doesn't make boost source code unstable, which was the point of this list.
* We don't test libraries against an installed release.
What do you mean?
In the sake of modularity (for example), take a boost library X, and test it in isolation, against its prerequisite boost libraries installed, not part of the same source tree.
Again I don't see how is it related to the stability of the boost source code, but my approach supports this naturally
* We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used variant by users.
We shouldn't be doing this at all IMO. NO testing during release.
You lost me.
That's the problem. No one seems to make an effort to read what I propose. My solution assumes that no testing is done during release, none whatsoever. Only components that already tested and individually released by developers will go into umbrella boost release. Gennadiy