Hi Beman, you wrote:
> >> * Monitor regression tests to verify that errors are dealt with. > > > >Unsure about that. ublas has some test failures (for ICC on windows for > >example) which nobody is going to fix probably. OTOH this is the only > >verification if cvs is consistent. > > The actual process for future releases is going to be more sophisticated > than in the past. For key compilers (those on major platforms with few > enough bugs that it is possible to look at errors in detail), we can try to > account for failures (as boost problems, compiler bugs, whatever). For > example, see the random library tests at > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32.html > > There are seven failures. Jens has looked each failure, and each has been > classified. (Except Borland classification which will show up tomorrow.) > You could say each failure has been "accounted for". Impressive. > Thus the release manager can see at a glance that this library is ready for > release. OK. > >> * Monitor mailing lists to verify that patches are being dealt with. > > > >Doesn't sf have a tracker for patches? > > > >> * Monitor mailing lists and bug tracker to verify that bug reports are > >> being dealt with. > > > >Doesn't sf have a tracker for bugs? > > Yes, to both but we aren't using them fully and/or properly. Exactly. > Also, people > post patches and bug reports direct to the mailing lists. That's probably wrong. They should use a tracker first and then discuss them on the mailing lists. > Sometimes they > get handled promptly, sometimes not. There's no assignment process currently. > I've got at least a dozen email > messages to the main list flagged as "awaiting response", plus lots of S/F > reports too. So you are responsible for all that stuff? ;-) > I keep meaning to research the best way to track bugs/patches, but haven't > found the time. Note that the "best way" may just mean learning to use > existing SourceForge features better. I believe it's a matter of discipline of the community to use the trackers. > >> * Monitor CVS commits to verify content gets committed as planned. > > > >Yep, seems like this one is a problem. Prereleases? > > Some kind of task list is more what I had in mind. SourceForge has such a > feature already; we aren't using it. OK. > Thanks for the questions. Even though programming is much more fun, I'm currently working in maintenance mode ;-) > we need > to do a certain amount of management to ensure release quality. Agreed. Best, Joerg _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost