Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen@dezide.com> writes:
Thomas Witt wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thomas,
Do you have anything to add to the discussion on committing the new version of boost.range?
Sorry for the late reply my internet connectivity over the last few days was worse than expected.
Given the fact that we don't want destabilizing changes in feature freeze I would really like to move this to 1.35.
I dno't like it. For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a freah-check out.
You're allowed to apply bugfixes now, just not check in new features. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong protocol for range conformance.
Yep, the existing protocol will become more entrenched.
Can't we just roll-back to the current cvs if we cannot stabalize it within, say, a week?
Thorsten, it's now a week past the freeze date, which was announced long ago. Yeah, none of us are perfect -- I begged for an extension, but I had a checkin ready to go the moment that I noticed the freeze announcement had gone out, and it was done and the code stabilized the instant Thomas approved it. I want the new Range features, too, but it seems to me that unless you can come up with some really convincing argument why this particular library warrants making a special exception to the rules -- and I'm still open to hearing one -- we have to respect Thomas' decision as release manager. That said, I think we should add the posting of a series of pre-freeze reminders to the release process, so those who lose track of the original announcement will be more likely to tie up their loose ends in time. This procedure will ultimately save lots of work for release managers as well (fewer extension requests). -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com