Release branch open for new libraries?
When will the release branch be open for new libraries (for 1.50)? The calendar on Boost.org shows no dates for 1.50 at all. Thanks! -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
On 12 March 2012 17:18, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
When will the release branch be open for new libraries (for 1.50)? The calendar on Boost.org shows no dates for 1.50 at all.
Sorry, we haven't set the schedule yet. Mainly because no one has got round to it. The release branch is open, but check before merging a new library, we need to check that everything's okay.
On Mar 18, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Daniel James wrote:
On 12 March 2012 17:18, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
When will the release branch be open for new libraries (for 1.50)? The calendar on Boost.org shows no dates for 1.50 at all.
Sorry, we haven't set the schedule yet. Mainly because no one has got round to it. The release branch is open, but check before merging a new library, we need to check that everything's okay.
Boost.Algorithm has been stable on the trunk for several weeks. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
On 19 March 2012 13:13, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Daniel James wrote:
Sorry, we haven't set the schedule yet. Mainly because no one has got round to it. The release branch is open, but check before merging a new library, we need to check that everything's okay.
Boost.Algorithm has been stable on the trunk for several weeks.
It isn't just about test results, see: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleasePractices/ManagerCheckList#NewL... I'll have a look later.
On 19 March 2012 13:24, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 March 2012 13:13, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Daniel James wrote:
Sorry, we haven't set the schedule yet. Mainly because no one has got round to it. The release branch is open, but check before merging a new library, we need to check that everything's okay.
Boost.Algorithm has been stable on the trunk for several weeks.
It isn't just about test results, see:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleasePractices/ManagerCheckList#NewL...
How do you want to build the documentation, do you want to add it to the combined documentation or build it standalone? Can you add the library to 'libs/libraries.txt', just link to libs/algorithm/index.html for now. I'll copy the details for the website from there.
On Mar 19, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Daniel James wrote:
On 19 March 2012 13:13, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Daniel James wrote:
Sorry, we haven't set the schedule yet. Mainly because no one has got round to it. The release branch is open, but check before merging a new library, we need to check that everything's okay.
Boost.Algorithm has been stable on the trunk for several weeks.
It isn't just about test results, see:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleasePractices/ManagerCheckList#NewL...
That page says:
Before a new library is merged into branches/release, the release manager should verify:
• root/libs/libraries.htm entry is OK, both in the alphabetic list and in the category lists.
This is done now. (r77561)
• root/libs/maintainers.txt entry is OK.
This was already done.
• The library's root/libs/xxx directory contains an index.html file with either the main docs or a redirection to the main docs. This is done now (r77564) - it redirects to the generated docs
• The primary docs pages meet Boost requirements and guidelines. Don't leave this until too late; it has turned up lots of issues in the past.
Well, I think that they do - other people may differ. I know there's more work to do here before release - a couple pages are pretty empty (Boyer-Moore-Horspool and Knuth-Morris-Pratt), but I've got the text around, just have to bang it into shape. I also want an index.
• Trunk inspection report is clean. Yes.
• Trunk regression tests are reasonably clean or marked up.
Yes. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
On 26 March 2012 18:40, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I think that they do - other people may differ.
I haven't seen them yet because you didn't tell me how to add them to the build. I'll do that now and run a build tonight.
• Trunk regression tests are reasonably clean or marked up.
Yes.
You should at least mark up the vacpp failures, and probably the msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2 ones as well.
On Mar 26, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On 26 March 2012 18:40, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I think that they do - other people may differ.
I haven't seen them yet because you didn't tell me how to add them to the build. I'll do that now and run a build tonight.
• Trunk regression tests are reasonably clean or marked up.
Yes.
You should at least mark up the vacpp failures, and probably the msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2 ones as well.
The vacapp failures are marked up, but not the msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2 ones yet. I'm looking at those - missing "abort"? Strange. [ Looking further, it's from Boost.Exception, and lots of Boost.Exception tests are failing the same way. I will follow up with Emil. ] -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
Le 10/04/12 15:49, Marshall Clow a écrit :
On Mar 26, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Daniel James wrote:
Well, I think that they do - other people may differ. I haven't seen them yet because you didn't tell me how to add them to
On 26 March 2012 18:40, Marshall Clow<mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote: the build. I'll do that now and run a build tonight.
• Trunk regression tests are reasonably clean or marked up. Yes. You should at least mark up the vacpp failures, and probably the msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2 ones as well. The vacapp failures are marked up, but not the msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2 ones yet. I'm looking at those - missing "abort"? Strange. [ Looking further, it's from Boost.Exception, and lots of Boost.Exception tests are failing the same way. I will follow up with Emil. ]
be& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi, there is a ticket https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6349. Best, Vicente
participants (3)
-
Daniel James -
Marshall Clow -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba