Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-12-13 Thread Martin Sebor
Travis Vitek wrote: Travis Vitek wrote Martin Sebor wrote: I've incorporated everyone's feedback and committed an updated version with a number of enhancements of my own. Among the most important are the new Goals section with suggested frequencies of releases, and the integration of the

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-12-13 Thread Mark Brown
The Linux Documentation Project lists a number of examples of library incompatibilities: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html#AEN135 --Mark On Dec 13, 2007 4:44 PM, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travis Vitek wrote: Travis Vitek wrote Martin Sebor

RE: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-12-06 Thread Eric Lemings
The scope of this issue is rather large for a minor release...IMHO. Brad. -Original Message- From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:59 PM To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RFC] stdcxx release

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-29 Thread Travis Vitek
Martin Sebor wrote: Martin Sebor wrote: So here's a question: do we think STDCXX-336 doable for 4.2.1? Also, what's your take on STDCXX-242 and STDCXX-343? I think there might be others where it's not completely clear (at least to me) what is forward compatible and what's not.

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-29 Thread Martin Sebor
Travis Vitek wrote: Martin Sebor wrote: Martin Sebor wrote: So here's a question: do we think STDCXX-336 doable for 4.2.1? Also, what's your take on STDCXX-242 and STDCXX-343? I think there might be others where it's not completely clear (at least to me) what is forward compatible and

RE: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-28 Thread Travis Vitek
Travis Vitek wrote Martin Sebor wrote: I've incorporated everyone's feedback and committed an updated version with a number of enhancements of my own. Among the most important are the new Goals section with suggested frequencies of releases, and the integration of the Version Policy (I

RE: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-27 Thread Farid Zaripov
Martin Sebor wrote: I've incorporated everyone's feedback and committed an updated version with a number of enhancements of my own. Among the most important are the new Goals section with suggested frequencies of releases, and the integration of the Version Policy (I plan to

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-27 Thread Martin Sebor
So here's a question: do we think STDCXX-336 doable for 4.2.1? Martin Farid Zaripov wrote: Martin Sebor wrote: I've incorporated everyone's feedback and committed an updated version with a number of enhancements of my own. Among the most important are the new Goals section with suggested

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-27 Thread Martin Sebor
Martin Sebor wrote: So here's a question: do we think STDCXX-336 doable for 4.2.1? Also, what's your take on STDCXX-242 and STDCXX-343? I think there might be others where it's not completely clear (at least to me) what is forward compatible and what's not. Martin Farid Zaripov wrote:

Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-19 Thread Travis Vitek
Martin Sebor wrote: I've incorporated everyone's feedback and committed an updated version with a number of enhancements of my own. Among the most important are the new Goals section with suggested frequencies of releases, and the integration of the Version Policy (I plan to delete

RE: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft

2007-11-13 Thread Eric Lemings
Overall, I'd say it's a pretty good start. All of the major elements are there: goals/objectives, tasks/procedures, definitions/roles, etc. As it evolves though, you'll probably want to break the process definitions into two separate documents: one for the development process and one for the