> David Abrahams wrote: > > Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > When we released 1.30.0, despite extensive pre-release testing, it > > went out with several prominent showstopper bugs. Don't you think > > we'll make the same mistake for 1.31.0? Also, AFAICT 1.30.1 can go > > out much, much sooner. > > > > I agree with Dave here. To me there is another good reason for doing > minor releases more frequently. Neither the next major > release nor the > CVS state is likely to help most of the people who use Boost in their > projects.
I agree that we should publish patch releases more frequently. But the question here what is the criteria whether the release should be considered patch or next one. In my projects I choose the following strategy: if release does not affect the interface, so that I could simply substitute one shared library with patched one - this is patch release. In other case it's next release. It may be a little different with boost, cause most of the staff in the headers. But the idea should be IMO similar. > I guess that there are a lot of projects out there that > cannot allow for > an interface change in one of the core libs every couple of month. So > they really need bugfix only releases if showstopper bugs are > found in > the last release. We should've publish patch release right after we discovered them. IMO at this point, with all those iterator adaptor changes I would rather made new release. > Just my 2c > > Thomas Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
