Hi, The 1.34.1 release candidate 3 is now available from http://www.boost.org/release/ please give it a try and report any problems to the developer list or directly to me. Thomas
witt@mailsnare.net wrote:
Hi,
The 1.34.1 release candidate 3 is now available from
please give it a try and report any problems to the developer list or directly to me.
Can you tell what was fixed/changed? I've just run: cvs diff -r Version_1_34_1_RC2 -r Version_1_34_1_RC3 and the only difference is release date in html files. Am I rusty with my cvs skills? What happened to boost filesystem 'inline' patch? Was the install issue in cygwin resolved? - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
witt@mailsnare.net wrote:
Can you tell what was fixed/changed? I've just run:
cvs diff -r Version_1_34_1_RC2 -r Version_1_34_1_RC3
and the only difference is release date in html files. Am I rusty with my cvs skills?
Yes, also the version numbers in the Getting Started document were changed
What happened to boost filesystem 'inline' patch? Was the install issue in cygwin resolved?
No to both of them. The time for code changes has long since passed. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
Thomas Witt wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
witt@mailsnare.net wrote:
Can you tell what was fixed/changed? I've just run:
cvs diff -r Version_1_34_1_RC2 -r Version_1_34_1_RC3
and the only difference is release date in html files. Am I rusty with my cvs skills?
Yes, also the version numbers in the Getting Started document were changed
Hmm, then what is the point of testing RC3? It does not have neither additional bugs, nor additional fixes relative to RC2.
What happened to boost filesystem 'inline' patch? Was the install issue in cygwin resolved?
No to both of them. The time for code changes has long since passed.
That is your pick. But I'd like to point out two things: 1. Both issues were reported in reply to your RC2 announcement. I did not saw any comment from you on those issues until now, after RC3. If bug reports for release candidates are silently ignored, what's the point of release candidates? Is there any point to report possible bugs in RC3 at all, if "time for code changes has passed"? 2. Those issues are not so minor. Note that quite some effort was spend on improving cygwin support. In fact, I believe Dave spent a couple of weeks on Boost.Python cygwin support. After that effort, releasing 1.34.1 with cygwin not working makes little sense. Note that boost.filesystem issue means you cannot use convenience.hpp in more than one module; essentially part of library is not usable in real-world programs, on all compilers. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
Hmm, then what is the point of testing RC3? It does not have neither additional bugs, nor additional fixes relative to RC2.
There is more to a release than just code. I might have screwed up packaging/html generation version numbers and so forth.
That is your pick. But I'd like to point out two things:
1. Both issues were reported in reply to your RC2 announcement. I did not saw any comment from you on those issues until now, after RC3. If bug reports for release candidates are silently ignored, what's the point of release candidates? Is there any point to report possible bugs in RC3 at all, if "time for code changes has passed"?
See my comment above.
2. Those issues are not so minor.
At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not.
Note that quite some effort was spend on improving cygwin support. In fact, I believe Dave spent a couple of weeks on Boost.Python cygwin support. After that effort, releasing 1.34.1 with cygwin not working makes little sense. Note that boost.filesystem issue means you cannot use convenience.hpp in more than one module; essentially part of library is not usable in real-world programs, on all compilers.
I know, there was a time to spot and fix it. It wasn't fixed. It's sad but as things are we'll never ship if we try to be perfect. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
Thomas Witt wrote:
That is your pick. But I'd like to point out two things:
1. Both issues were reported in reply to your RC2 announcement. I did not saw any comment from you on those issues until now, after RC3. If bug reports for release candidates are silently ignored, what's the point of release candidates? Is there any point to report possible bugs in RC3 at all, if "time for code changes has passed"?
See my comment above.
I probably did not express myself clearly enough. There was RC2. There were two bugs reported, and you did not comment on them. Don't you think that if you meant that no code changes will be allowed at this point, it would be better to clearly indicate that, to save folks time to look into and report bugs? Don't you think it would be better to explicitly comment on the reported issues, in any case? I worry that the general state of release process is not communicated effectively, so most folks have no idea where we are.
2. Those issues are not so minor.
At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not.
Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not.
Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now.
Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not.
Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now.
Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3 appear to lack this fix. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not. Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now. Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3 appear to lack this fix.
Is the cygwin problem a regression from 1.34.0? If so, Thomas, would you be willing to reconsider? Point releases shouldn't have major regressions. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not. Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now. Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I
It's related to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy>, and <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat>.
understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3 appear to lack this fix.
Indeed... I though I did everything I was supposed to do procedure wise. That is I did everything I did for the other bugs. Is there something I should have done differently? Was there some miscommunication? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
2. Those issues are not so minor. At som point they have to be catastrophic to justify changes. They are not. Probably. Except that issue http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1025, that is *already* targeted to 1.34.1, and marked as fixed, appears to be not. At the same time, the effort I personally spent on cygwin is small compared to other folks, and I don't really think cygwin is worth supporting, so I'll shut up now. Sorry... But I refuse to take take the fall for something I posted a fix for a month ago <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1062>.
Ehm! My dictionary does not say that "take the fall" means, but if I
It's related to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy>, and <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat>.
I see. Sorry you got this impression -- I merely wanted to say that it 1.34.1 is claimed to fix cygwin issues, then cygwin better work.
understand correctly this issue not only was reported quite some time ago, but also has a patch? Hmm, that makes it even stranger that RC3 appear to lack this fix.
Indeed... I though I did everything I was supposed to do procedure wise. That is I did everything I did for the other bugs. Is there something I should have done differently? Was there some miscommunication?
This is what I'm wondering about. In fact, looking at http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/2, I see quite a number of issues reported for 1.34.0. Ideally, our issue workflow should be arranged so that all issues reported for 1.N.0 are evaluated when planning 1.N.1. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
I probably did not express myself clearly enough. There was RC2. There were two bugs reported, and you did not comment on them. Don't you think that if you meant that no code changes will be allowed at this point, it would be better to clearly indicate that, to save folks time to look into and report bugs?
No you're expressing yourself clearly. This is a RC and the threshold for fixing issues is very high. This is usual industry practice and should not be too surprising for most people.
Don't you think it would be better to explicitly comment on the reported issues, in any case?
It's better. And I apologize for not doing it but at the end of the day I just did not have the time. BTW IIRC I explicitly stated that I wouldn't be available for some time. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
Thomas Witt wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote: I probably did not express myself clearly enough. There was RC2. There were two bugs reported, and you did not comment on them. Don't you think that if you meant that no code changes will be allowed at this point, it would be better to clearly indicate that, to save folks time to look into and report bugs?
No you're expressing yourself clearly. This is a RC and the threshold for fixing issues is very high. This is usual industry practice and should not be too surprising for most people.
I'm still as confused as Vladimir: If there is no difference between RC2 and RC3, why do we have RC3 ? And, what are we waiting for for the candidate to turn into the release ? (IIRC, the next big change just waiting for the release to get out the door is the completion of the move to subversion.) Thanks, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I'm still as confused as Vladimir: If there is no difference between RC2 and RC3, why do we have RC3 ?
As I said before there is a difference.
And, what are we waiting for for the candidate to turn into the release ?
Me having the time. Just pushing it out requires 2h of uninterrupted focused work, in the best case. A RC is 1h+. These time slots are hard to find. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org
Thomas Witt wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
And, what are we waiting for for the candidate to turn into the release ?
Me having the time. Just pushing it out requires 2h of uninterrupted focused work, in the best case. A RC is 1h+. These time slots are hard to find.
I am really, really, keen to see boost 1.34.1 out in the field as soon as possible (it has been /far/ too long since 1.33.1). ***BUT** I am even keener not to see 1.34.2 make an appearance. Please don't try and push the release out until: 1. You are feeling well 2. You are feeling unhassled 3. You have 3+ hours of uninterrupted time available (best cases /never/ happen). -- Martin Bonner Project Leader PI SHURLOK LTD Telephone: +44 1223 441434 / 203894 (direct) Fax: +44 1223 203999 Email: martin.bonner@pi-shurlok.com www.pi-shurlok.com disclaimer
Ticket http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/995 is not fixed: inline missing in filesystem/convenience.hpp How can we close this ticket which is anoying on the windows platform? Regards, F. Bron ___________________________________ Frédéric Bron (frederic.bron@alcan.com) Unité ALT, Alcan CRV, BP 27, 38341 Voreppe téléphone : +33 4 76 57 81 72 télécopie : +33 4 76 57 80 99 "witt@mailsnare.ne t" <witt Pour : boost@lists.boost.org, boost-users@lists.boost.org Envoyé par : cc : (ccc : Frederic Bron/Alcan) boost-bounces@list Objet : [boost] [1.34.1] Release Candidate 3 s.boost.org 16/07/2007 20:46 Veuillez répondre à boost Hi, The 1.34.1 release candidate 3 is now available from http://www.boost.org/release/ please give it a try and report any problems to the developer list or directly to me. Thomas _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost Avis : Ce message et toute pièce jointe sont la propriété d'Alcan et sont destinés seulement aux personnes ou à l'entité à qui le message est adressé. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire et en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du message, vous n'êtes pas autorisé à utiliser, à copier ou à divulguer le contenu du message ou ses pièces jointes en tout ou en partie. Notice: This message and any attachments are the property of Alcan and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.
participants (8)
-
Eric Niebler -
frederic.bron＠alcan.com -
Martin Bonner -
Rene Rivera -
Stefan Seefeld -
Thomas Witt -
Vladimir Prus -
witt＠mailsnare.net