[1.41.0] Beta 2 plans

[Beman Dawes]

Due to the issues exposed in the "Official warnings policy?" thread,
there will be a second 1.41.0 beta, tentatively scheduled for Sunday,
November 15th.

Until Saturday, November 14th, the release branch is open for merges
of low-risk bug fixes. In particular, fixes that clear compiler
warnings are encouraged. Please do, however, make sure any changes are
stable on trunk before merging them to release.

I'll be traveling until Monday, with little or no email connectivity.
So if questions arise, it would be great if the other release managers
could step in with responses.

Thanks,

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Robert Ramey]

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Due to the issues exposed in the "Official warnings policy?" thread,
> there will be a second 1.41.0 beta, tentatively scheduled for Sunday,
> November 15th.
>
> Until Saturday, November 14th, the release branch is open for merges
> of low-risk bug fixes. In particular, fixes that clear compiler
> warnings are encouraged.

I don't think this is a great idea at this point.  I believe that
the criteria for a release is that the release branch is strictly
better than the last release.  Setting new goals/requirements
at this juncture will start a whole new round of delays and
pleas for "just one more thing".  If there is some particular
library which has been merged from trunk to release and
it has resulted in a violation of the "strict improvement"
criteria, (ie a regression), it can be backed to the last
release.

I also believe that starting to fix warnings like this
will raise a whole new set of questions - e.g. which warning
level should be used which will require lot's of
discussion, and tweaking (e.g. boost::noncopyable).
The release process isn't a good place for all that.

> Please do, however, make sure any changes are
> stable on trunk before merging them to release.

Glad we haven't succumbed to taking a shortcut here.

The releae has already been delayed several times for
"just one more thing".  And this is after the "release
date" was well publisized and postponed a couple of times.
Boost will never be perfect.  But we can't let this
hold up progress on making it better.

Robert Ramey





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Eric Niebler-3]

Robert Ramey wrote:

> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Due to the issues exposed in the "Official warnings policy?" thread,
>> there will be a second 1.41.0 beta, tentatively scheduled for Sunday,
>> November 15th.
>>
>> Until Saturday, November 14th, the release branch is open for merges
>> of low-risk bug fixes. In particular, fixes that clear compiler
>> warnings are encouraged.
>
> I don't think this is a great idea at this point.  I believe that
> the criteria for a release is that the release branch is strictly
> better than the last release.  Setting new goals/requirements
> at this juncture will start a whole new round of delays and
> pleas for "just one more thing".

I must agree with Robert here. Let's stick with the original plan, get
1.41 out, and *then* figure out what to do about the warnings.

--
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@...> wrote:

> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>
>>> Due to the issues exposed in the "Official warnings policy?" thread,
>>> there will be a second 1.41.0 beta, tentatively scheduled for Sunday,
>>> November 15th.
>>>
>>> Until Saturday, November 14th, the release branch is open for merges
>>> of low-risk bug fixes. In particular, fixes that clear compiler
>>> warnings are encouraged.
>>
>> I don't think this is a great idea at this point.  I believe that
>> the criteria for a release is that the release branch is strictly
>> better than the last release.  Setting new goals/requirements
>> at this juncture will start a whole new round of delays and
>> pleas for "just one more thing".
>
> I must agree with Robert here. Let's stick with the original plan, get 1.41
> out, and *then* figure out what to do about the warnings.

Does anyone want to argue in favor of a second beta?

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Vladimir Prus-3]

Beman Dawes wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@...> wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>>
>>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Due to the issues exposed in the "Official warnings policy?" thread,
>>>> there will be a second 1.41.0 beta, tentatively scheduled for Sunday,
>>>> November 15th.
>>>>
>>>> Until Saturday, November 14th, the release branch is open for merges
>>>> of low-risk bug fixes. In particular, fixes that clear compiler
>>>> warnings are encouraged.
>>>
>>> I don't think this is a great idea at this point.  I believe that
>>> the criteria for a release is that the release branch is strictly
>>> better than the last release.  Setting new goals/requirements
>>> at this juncture will start a whole new round of delays and
>>> pleas for "just one more thing".
>>
>> I must agree with Robert here. Let's stick with the original plan, get 1.41
>> out, and *then* figure out what to do about the warnings.
>
> Does anyone want to argue in favor of a second beta?

As soon as the final release a still a couple of days away to allow testing the
OSX 10.6/ppc64 fix I've just committed to trunk, it does not seem like second
beta is much needed.

- Volodya


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Paul A. Bristow-2]

No -  release ASAP - and it was never my intention to delay the release(s)
because of warnings.

(In fact I am concerned that we are still failing to 'release on-time and
release often' because of things that are allegedly showstoppers.  Provided a
release is significantly better than the previous one, it should go ahead.  Of
course this is more work for whoever has the unenviable task of doing the
release - very, very many thanks Beman - but maybe you are getting it more
automated - or *you* are getting more automated ;-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces@... [mailto:boost-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of
> Beman Dawes
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 2:04 PM
> To: boost@...
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.41.0] Beta 2 plans
 
> Does anyone want to argue in favor of a second beta?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost