Re: [boost] serialization library #17

Jeff Garland wrote
Just so you know, the compile blows up with the CVS as of about a day ago. I'm sure not your fault, but so you know...
Well, as you can imagine, I'm happy to know that. At times during this development I used the development tree and other times I used the latest release. Basically I use the latest release rather until I need something that is only in the development tree. This happened with new iterators and mpl. When the release candidated 1.31 came out I switched back to that. My motivation for preferring the latest release is that I would like to upload something that I can expect to work and other people can test with a minimum amount of hassle. I'm mean I have enough problems with my own flakey ( er.. experimental) code with out adding in everyone else's. So as things stand now I'm inclined to work to the 1.31.0 . Having said that, it seems to me the development tree is considered "experimental" where as I would prefer that it be considered "Candidate for Release" That is, I think code is uploaded without out being fully tested in one's local environment. I think this creates a chain reaction at release time. Its not that I think anyone is really wrong, just that I think things would be better if developer's were a little more conservative. (But then, I'm getting old, I think that about everybody) In this case presumable something in new iterators has changed and caught me with my pants down (for the second time !). Oh well. I'll worry about it if we ever get to incorporating the library in a release. Robert Ramey

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:20:21 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote
My motivation for preferring the latest release is that I would like to upload something that I can expect to work and other people can test with a minimum amount of hassle. I'm mean I have enough problems with my own flakey ( er.. experimental) code with out adding in everyone else's.
I agree completely -- I have the same issue. Even though I work out of the cvs tree, I often don't update the other parts of boost for long periods of time...
So as things stand now I'm inclined to work to the 1.31.0 .
Makes sense -- I just switched back to 1.31 when when I ran into trouble.
Having said that, it seems to me the development tree is considered "experimental" where as I would prefer that it be considered "Candidate for Release" That is, I think code is uploaded without out being fully tested in one's local environment. I think this creates a chain reaction at release time. Its not that I think anyone is really wrong, just that I think things would be better if developer's were a little more conservative. (But then, I'm getting old, I think that about everybody)
No, I don't think there is alot of 'wild checking in' causing this issue. In my case, several compilers are usually checked before changes are checked-in -- but things still break. This is especially true with the old compilers -- some of them are just plain cranky. And not having all the compilers it sometimes takes some time to fix things since it is a 24 hour cycle between fix and test. Jeff

Perhaps the issue is that branches in the main CVS repository are not used liberally enough. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
participants (3)
-
Jeff Garland
-
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
-
Robert Ramey