[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 10:50 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: - Original Message - From: "Fredrik Blomqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released Shouldn't the documentation for function and signals be added when you're making an official release also? Yep, we should add that to the release manager's TODO list. We can just pull in the 1.30.0 docs, because nothing has changed in either library for 1.30.1. [TRUNCATE] I read on an eXtreme Programming Wiki web-page that the release procedure should be automated with a script. This lowers the chance that the release procedure has secret steps that only one person knows. Maybe we should strive for that. Daryle ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
Beman Dawes wrote: At 01:18 PM 8/5/2003, Daryle Walker wrote: >I read on an eXtreme Programming Wiki web-page that the release >procedure should be automated with a script. This lowers the chance >that the release procedure has secret steps that only one person knows. > Maybe we should strive for that. Yes. It may be easier to script everything if we move the web hosting to SourceForge, which is under active consideration. (The current procedures use some GUI steps that don't script easily, and the current host doesn't allow shell access.) What about release candidates? It wouldn't hurt to have someone else look at it before calling it a release and it's quite easy to do. All it costs is some time, but I think we should invest a few days in more stable releases. Also, it's orthogonal to scripting the release procedure. :) Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>What about release candidates? It wouldn't hurt to have someone else >>>look at it before calling it a release and it's quite easy to do. All >>>it costs is some time, but I think we should invest a few days in more >>>stable releases. Also, it's orthogonal to scripting the release >>>procedure. :) >>> >>>Regards, Daniel >> Are you ready to volunteer? It was quite time consuming for me to >> release this version. Of course a script and more instructions >> would've made it so much easier... > > I see your point. So, it's not orthognal in some way. But when we have > the scripting in place, it should also be easier for you to create a > release candidate. And if "volunteering" means downloading it and > testing it, then yes, I'd do this. No, it means managing the next release. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> At 01:18 PM 8/5/2003, Daryle Walker wrote: >> >I read on an eXtreme Programming Wiki web-page that the release >> >procedure should be automated with a script. This lowers the chance >> >that the release procedure has secret steps that only one person knows. >> > Maybe we should strive for that. >> Yes. It may be easier to script everything if we move the web >> hosting to SourceForge, which is under active consideration. (The >> current procedures use some GUI steps that don't script easily, and >> the current host doesn't allow shell access.) > > What about release candidates? It wouldn't hurt to have someone else > look at it before calling it a release and it's quite easy to do. All > it costs is some time, but I think we should invest a few days in more > stable releases. Also, it's orthogonal to scripting the release > procedure. :) > > Regards, Daniel Are you ready to volunteer? It was quite time consuming for me to release this version. Of course a script and more instructions would've made it so much easier... -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
At 01:18 PM 8/5/2003, Daryle Walker wrote: >On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 10:50 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> From: "Fredrik Blomqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:40 PM >> Subject: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released >> >> >>> Shouldn't the documentation for function and signals be added when >>> you're making an official release also? >> >> Yep, we should add that to the release manager's TODO list. We can >> just pull in the 1.30.0 docs, because nothing has changed in either >> library for 1.30.1. >[TRUNCATE] > >I read on an eXtreme Programming Wiki web-page that the release >procedure should be automated with a script. This lowers the chance >that the release procedure has secret steps that only one person knows. > Maybe we should strive for that. Yes. It may be easier to script everything if we move the web hosting to SourceForge, which is under active consideration. (The current procedures use some GUI steps that don't script easily, and the current host doesn't allow shell access.) --Beman ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
David Abrahams wrote: Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What about release candidates? It wouldn't hurt to have someone else look at it before calling it a release and it's quite easy to do. All it costs is some time, but I think we should invest a few days in more stable releases. Also, it's orthogonal to scripting the release procedure. :) Regards, Daniel Are you ready to volunteer? It was quite time consuming for me to release this version. Of course a script and more instructions would've made it so much easier... I see your point. So, it's not orthognal in some way. But when we have the scripting in place, it should also be easier for you to create a release candidate. And if "volunteering" means downloading it and testing it, then yes, I'd do this. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
David Abrahams wrote: Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: release candidate. And if "volunteering" means downloading it and testing it, then yes, I'd do this. No, it means managing the next release. Um, no, I don't feel like I can handle that. Sorry. I'm sure it's a lot of work and a big "Thank You!" to you for doing this job, but I think it requires knowledge which I don't have. And more time than I have, but this seems to be everybody's problem... :) Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
At 04:43 PM 8/7/2003, Daniel Frey wrote: >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:38:22 +0200, Daniel Frey wrote: > >> David Abrahams wrote: >>> No, it means managing the next release. >> >> Um, no, I don't feel like I can handle that. Sorry. I'm sure it's a lot >> of work and a big "Thank You!" to you for doing this job, but I think it >> requires knowledge which I don't have. And more time than I have, but >> this seems to be everybody's problem... :) > >Just to clarify: I don't meant to reject volunteering to the release >process in general. It's just that I am sure that I would make a mess of >1.30.2 due to the tight shedule. Also, I need to learn more about some >parts of boost that I don't feel comfortable with (yet). > >Anyway, if you really think I should/could manage a release, I suggest >that I get more time and try my hands on 1.31.1 or something similar. As far as 1.31.0 goes, I don't mind managing most of it. But what would be a great help is if you (and anyone else interested) would volunteer to work on patches/bugs/issues management. There are really two aspects of this: (1) Making sure that patches, bugs, and issues get dealt with. (I can provide more details on what this involves.) (2) Figure out a better way to track patches, bugs, and issues. Somehow we aren't making use of available tools; we need to fix that. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:38:22 +0200, Daniel Frey wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: >> No, it means managing the next release. > > Um, no, I don't feel like I can handle that. Sorry. I'm sure it's a lot > of work and a big "Thank You!" to you for doing this job, but I think it > requires knowledge which I don't have. And more time than I have, but > this seems to be everybody's problem... :) Just to clarify: I don't meant to reject volunteering to the release process in general. It's just that I am sure that I would make a mess of 1.30.2 due to the tight shedule. Also, I need to learn more about some parts of boost that I don't feel comfortable with (yet). Anyway, if you really think I should/could manage a release, I suggest that I get more time and try my hands on 1.31.1 or something similar. Regards, Daniel ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
- Original Message - From: "Fredrik Blomqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released > Shouldn't the documentation for function and signals be added when your're > making an official release also? Yep, we should add that to the release manager's TODO list. We can just pull in the 1.30.0 docs, because nothing has changed in either library for 1.30.1. > What's the status regarding the new doc-system btw? (too lazy/tired to dig > through the archives right now ;-) It's there, and it's not half bad, although development has been a little slow over the summer. Doxygen extraction has been improved a bit in recent times. Doug ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost 1.30.1 released
Shouldn't the documentation for function and signals be added when your're making an official release also? What's the status regarding the new doc-system btw? (too lazy/tired to dig through the archives right now ;-) // Fredrik David Abrahams wrote: > Version 1.30.1 is a bugfix-only update. See http://www.boost.org for > details of what has been fixed. > > Version 1.31.0, due out shortly, will contain some changes to library > interfaces (notably the iterator adaptors library) which may break > client code. Version 1.30.1 was released in order to deliver > non-interface-breaking improvements to existing users of Boost 1.30.0. > > Note for Boost.Python users: this release is not compatible with > Python 2.3. For information on how to obtain a Python 2.3-compatible > version of Boost.Python, please see http://www.boost.org/libs/python. ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
