Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 07:37 AM 8/11/2003, David Abrahams wrote: > >Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Beman Dawes wrote: > >>> Assuming I'm release manager for 1.31.0, I'm going to publish explicit > >>> release criteria for key platform/compiler pairs. Basically, the > >>> criteria will be 100% accounting for all failures on those > >>> platform/compiler pairs. > >> > >> While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see > >> _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous > >> release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are > >> currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools > >> to ensure it. > > > >I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on > >compiler combinations they don't test with. For example, who is going > >to address the one lexical_cast failure that's plaguing the 1.30.2 > >release? It's only on intel-7.1 with STLPort and looks for all the > >world like a config problem. > > It can be very time consuming to track down the exact reason for > failures. Thus we should focus our 1.31.0 effort on a small number of > widely used compilers which don't have a lot of problems. > > For a lightly used toolset like intel-7.1 with STLPort, "looks for all > the world like a config problem" seems like a good enough resolution > to me.
In that case, can I release 1.30.2? I don't like having the 1.30.1 debacle hanging over my head. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
