On 22 April 2010 04:43, Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:30:21 -0500, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
The beta cycle is more about fixing regressions caused by changes to boost, rather than existing problems or problems caused by external changes. But the real problem here is that no one has accepted the ticket. If the library was actively maintained, then IMO this would be fine (after testing, naturally).
I've seen the ticket, but the scope/urgency of the issue (show stopper for Fusion and Xpressive) wasn't apparent to me from the ticket's description.
Just to put what I wrote in context, I've sent a few mails to this list in the past suggesting that we should take greater group ownership, rather than relying on individual maintainers to deal with a library's issues. It wasn't my intent to criticise you for not actively maintaining MPL. I think I might sound too negative about this, there seems to be more people taking on these issues over the past year or so.
My experience as a release manager (admittedly from a long time ago) was that release-critical issues will slip past even the most active library maintainers, and letting them know about it (and occasionally nagging) goes a long way towards "all green" release.
The release process is quite different now. It seems to me that the focus is to get a regular release with the more modest goal of being an incremental improvement, rather than an 'all green' release. If there is a bug that goes unfixed, it can be fixed three months later, which is not that long and quicker than you'd wait for some of the old releases to be finished. If no one's fixing it, and someone cares about it, it's their responsibility to make sure it gets fixed. This reduces the burden on the release managers, which was too high in the old system. For all its faults, the new system feels like an improvement to me. (It's hopefully clear that this is all my opinion, not policy). Daniel