[1.35.0] Release candidate process
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release. Because we now build release branch snapshots daily, the process of issuing release candidates is a bit different than in the past. The daily release branch snapshots are in effect the release candidates. So I guess the only thing the release manager has to do is create an RC_whatever tag, rename the current files on the ftp site, and post an announcement. Unless anyone feels a different procedure should be used, I'll go ahead and do that in the next couple of days. For the links to 1.35.0 release related material, including the current snapshot, see http://beta.boost.org/development/testing.html#Snapshots. --Beman
On 18/02/2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release.
Are broken copyright links considered important enough for this release? http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1573 Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release.
Are broken copyright links considered important enough for this release?
Looks like this is all date-time library stuff? Given that this is a trivial search and replace to fix, and effects only comments not code, I'd say lets fix it, especially if you're willing to do the job ;-) Beman? John.
John Maddock wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release. Are broken copyright links considered important enough for this release?
Looks like this is all date-time library stuff?
Given that this is a trivial search and replace to fix, and effects only comments not code, I'd say lets fix it, especially if you're willing to do the job ;-)
Beman?
Wow, is it really possible that this has been broken for 3 releases? Anyway, instead of fixing the code why not just forward the -1.0.txt url to the _1_0.txt on the web site? That's a 1 minute change and we can fix the code in the next release. Jeff
John Maddock wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release. Are broken copyright links considered important enough for this release?
Looks like this is all date-time library stuff?
Given that this is a trivial search and replace to fix, and effects only comments not code, I'd say lets fix it, especially if you're willing to do the job ;-)
Beman?
...sorry if this ends up being a duplicate... Wow, is it really possible that this has been broken for 3 releases? Anyway, instead of fixing the code why not just forward the -1.0.txt url to the _1_0.txt on the web site? That's a 1 minute change and we can fix the code in the next release. Jeff
John Maddock wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
There is a seemingly endless set of improvements to *could* be made to 1.35.0. But I think that it is time to try to identify any showstoppers, fix those, and defer everything else to the next release. Are broken copyright links considered important enough for this release?
Looks like this is all date-time library stuff?
Given that this is a trivial search and replace to fix, and effects only comments not code, I'd say lets fix it, especially if you're willing to do the job ;-)
Beman?
Yes, definitely. And that applies to any other straightforward fixes that don't affect code. Just go ahead and make them, don't wait for an OK from me. I'm going to be tied up all next week at the C++ committee meeting in Bellevue, Washington, US, so don't expect much action from me during that time. Thanks, --Beman
participants (5)
-
Beman Dawes -
Daniel James -
Jeff Garland -
Jeff Garland -
John Maddock