[release] Boost 1.72.0 Release Candidate 1
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Boost Release Managers
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I have successfully built this with the following configurations. Ubuntu 18.04 with gcc 7.3.2: Successful build with C++03/11/14/17 Ubuntu 18.04 with clang trunk: Successful build with C++03/11/14/17/2a -- Marshall
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I just noticed that the files have an "b1" in the file name. Dang! They're not beta RCs, they're release RCs. Sorry for the confusion. -- Marshall
On 2019-12-05 19:08, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I just noticed that the files have an "b1" in the file name. Dang!
They're not beta RCs, they're release RCs. Sorry for the confusion.
Not a suggestion for 1.72, but we could probably simplify pre-releases naming to just RCn without betas. I.e. we'd have 4-5 RCs instead of RC betas and RCs.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:23 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Not a suggestion for 1.72, but we could probably simplify pre-releases naming to just RCn without betas. I.e. we'd have 4-5 RCs instead of RC betas and RCs.
The reason that we have betas is that some external folks (like linux distros) trigger on that. They ignore boost until they see a beta release, then they start testing against that; knowing that a release is imminent. -- Marshall
On 2019-12-05 19:48, Marshall Clow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:23 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org>> wrote:
Not a suggestion for 1.72, but we could probably simplify pre-releases naming to just RCn without betas. I.e. we'd have 4-5 RCs instead of RC betas and RCs.
The reason that we have betas is that some external folks (like linux distros) trigger on that. They ignore boost until they see a beta release, then they start testing against that; knowing that a release is imminent.
I assume, they trigger on RCs too, right?
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:01 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:23 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org>> wrote:
Not a suggestion for 1.72, but we could probably simplify
On 2019-12-05 19:48, Marshall Clow wrote: pre-releases
naming to just RCn without betas. I.e. we'd have 4-5 RCs instead of
RC
betas and RCs.
The reason that we have betas is that some external folks (like linux distros) trigger on that. They ignore boost until they see a beta release, then they start testing against that; knowing that a release is imminent.
I assume, they trigger on RCs too, right?
Not that I've seen; no. -- Marshall
On 2019-12-05 20:02, Marshall Clow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:01 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org>> wrote:
On 2019-12-05 19:48, Marshall Clow wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:23 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost > <boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org>>> wrote: > > > Not a suggestion for 1.72, but we could probably simplify pre-releases > naming to just RCn without betas. I.e. we'd have 4-5 RCs instead of RC > betas and RCs. > > > The reason that we have betas is that some external folks (like linux > distros) trigger on that. > They ignore boost until they see a beta release, then they start testing > against that; knowing that a release is imminent.
I assume, they trigger on RCs too, right?
Not that I've seen; no.
Hmm, that seems strange.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I have built this with the following configurations: Mac OS 11.6 with Apple LLVM version 8.0.0 (clang-800.0.42.1) Successful build with C++03/11/14/17 Mac OS 11.6 with with clang trunk: Successful build with C++03/11/14/ Unsuccessful build of Boost.Log with C++17/2a Note that this is a libc++ issue, not a Boost or Boost.Log issue. --- Marshall
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I have built this with the following configurations: Mac OS 10.14.6 with Apple LLVM version 10.0.1 (clang-1001.0.46.4) Successful build with C++03/11/14/17 Mac OS 10.14.6 with with clang trunk: Successful build with C++03/11/14/17/2a -- Marshall
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:28 AM Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
-- The Boost Release Managers
Windows/Visual Studio builds look good. toolset arch compile Link Execute msvc-10.0 32 X X X msvc-10.0 64 X X X msvc-11.0 32 X X X msvc-11.0 64 X X X msvc-12.0 32 X X X msvc-12.0 64 X X X msvc-14.0 32 X X X msvc-14.0 64 X X X msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X msvc-14.2 32 X X X msvc-14.2 64 X X X Compile means that the b2 command completed without errors Link means that visual studio was able to link a sample executable to a library (libboost_thread-vcXXX-mt[-gd]-1_XX.lib) generated Execute means that the linked program executed without errors. Full builds logs can be found here: https://gist.github.com/teeks99/19bec6969cfd1d9a80204f65293abbcf Tom
participants (3)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Marshall Clow -
Tom Kent