Re: [boost] Can't get from anonymous CVS
Hello.. I think that is something that has to be fixed on sourceforges end. You may want to send it in to them. Ben - Original Message - From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Can't get from anonymous CVS > At Thursday 2003-08-07 17:28, you wrote: > >cvs server: [11:59:06] waiting for anoncvs_boost's lock in > >/cvsroot/boost/boost/libs/numeric/mtl/test > >cvs server: [15:35:09] waiting for anoncvs_boost's lock in > >/cvsroot/boost/boost/libs/numeric/mtl/test > > > >that's been going on every 30 seconds for 5 1/2 hours > > > >does anyone know how to "fix" that problem? > [deleted] > Ok, so I can't subtract...but it's now > cvs server: [20:28:39] waiting for anoncvs_boost's lock in > /cvsroot/boost/boost/libs/numeric/mtl/test > > > Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com > The five most dangerous words in the English language: >"There oughta be a law" > > ___ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: plans for a bugfix release ?
Hello.. Typically what i do for releases is something along the line of this. prject - x,yy,zz x - major architecture changes. yy - minor changes. (uneven for development). zz - no interface changes. bug fixes. I try to release the zz often (for stable). Everytime there is a critical fix or a few bug fixes that are causing people problems. For the unstable versions i try to release as soon as there are some cool features in there that need testing. If things go really well on an unstable release and the features that we want are in then i consider a new stable version. Rember the release early and often. The longer its being developed in cvs the more bugs that are going to be around during a stable release. I personnaly don't like the major release scheduals for anything other then major releases. Anything that is going to take 6 months to a year should be a major release. Minors are like once a month.. And patchs as soon as there is enough problems to require one. Ben - Original Message - From: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Boost mailing list'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [boost] Re: plans for a bugfix release ? > > 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 > ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] CVS login vs Anonymous
Hello Everybody I would just like to tell everybody that Sourceforge has switched to using backup servers for the anonymous logins, so they are 24 hours behind. Ben ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3
- Original Message - From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3 > Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | At 02:44 AM 7/3/2003, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > | > | >On Friday, July 04, 2003 12:38 AM [GMT+1=CET], > | >David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > > | >>> On the other hand if your native compiler is GCC and your system was > | >>> not configured with that setting, then you may get into trouble -- > | >>> since you'll be mixing translation units with different ABIs. > | >> > | >> Furthermore, that sounds like a workaround. Isn't it still a > | >> compiler bug that it doesn't work without -fabi-version=0? > | > > | >No, it's correctly fixed, but since it's a fix that breaks ABI, the > | >version number was bumbed. By default, GCC 3.3 uses the GCC 3.2 ABI. > | >If you want to > | >activate the new version, you have to explicitally say so. > | >"-fabi-version=0" always selects the last version of the ABI. > | > | So are you are saying we should add "-fabi-version=0"? > > If you do that unconditionally, you may get ABI incompatible > libraries/programs compared to what your system come with. > > The default ABI version for GCC-3.3.x is 1. You might want to set it > to 2 and see what happens (for GCC-3.3.x) -- some bugs are fixed in > -fabi-version=2. > > > This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by > taking users for beta testers ;-) > > -- Gaby Hello Was this -fabi-version flag just there for testing different version or do users have to know about this? Could you test the compiler version and set it appropriately ABI. As you guys are probobly already aware of is that this will lead to a ton of questions (if people read enough to know the flag excists) and bug reports due to ABI imcompatibilities. Ben > ___ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
