On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:37:24 -0400, David Abrahams wrote

Boost.Graph changes have caused plenty of regressions in Boost.Python in the past. Sorry, I thougth that this would be a pretty good example of a high level library. So I was wrong.

We should have more releases. Waiting for libraries to be checked in is one thing that keeps us from being able to release more frequently. Yes, but if I have the choice of waiting one additional week for the check in of an accepted library against waiting 2 month for the next release I would choose to wait that additional week. However, I have read in one of the other mails that you have a deadline with your book. So live is not

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:33:26 -0400, David Abrahams wrote that simple at all. I won't persist on changing the planned schedule. Don't get me wrong.

It sounds like you want a whole new Boost procedure for reviews *and* releases. That seems like a stretch; we don't have any idea whether it would work at all. No, I merely think that a library should be accepted when it is ready for checkin and there is not a list of changes and request pending.

...

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:51:36 +0200, Johannes Brunen wrotes We should list them on the lib page but in a special section. I don't like the sound of that. It should be very clear to people which things are part of Boost and which aren't. Ok, I second that. If it not clear for people what is part of boost

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:34:22 -0400, David Abrahams wrote then it is the wrong way. People should be able to build on a boost release. With kind regards Johannes