"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> In many ways the preparation Boost 1.30.0 went very well, and the >> resulting release seems very high quality to me. >> >> There were rough edges of course, and we'll try to make some >> improvements >> in coming months. Mostly just procedural stuff like making sure we >> have an active maintainer for all libraries, and getting maintainers >> to make major changes earlier in the process. >> >> The worst problem seems to me to be that our bug and patch tracking is >> totally dysfunctional. > > I would like to add an idea that I have mentioned in the past; which is that > each library have some documentation on the changes made from release to > release, at least on the order of major things happening such as features > being added or changed or deleted, so that the end user has some idea of > what is different in the new release for that library. I find the idea that > such documentation does not exist really disturbing. I believe library > implementors have to take responsibility for such documentation although I > imagine a patch tracking system would help.
I added that to Boost.Python, FWIW. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
