Re: Boost 1.36.0 release notice

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> This would work well with other testing and release procedures.
>> That is, testing and release would use the last released tool
>> version, NOT the one being refined in the trunk. This would
>> be in line with what I hope will be the future of boost in that
>> libraries are tested against last release and rolled into the
>> release ready version as they prove that they are ready
>> for prime time.
>
> Yes, although the problems we've been having aren't so much with new
> tools as with existing tools that break unexpectedly (and/or worse
> yet, silently).
>
> Also, the breaking change may be in a tool that Booster's don't
> maintain, such as Doxygen or xsltproc.
>

The same could be said for libraries.  Actually, to me, the most important
part of the testing process is detecting when something that I depend upon 
changes.
 I complain about this all the time - but even if no one introduced breaking
changes, there is always new stuff - new compilers, new versions
of stl, new os variations, corrections in libraries which catch
previously undetected errors of my own.

My real point is that there is no reason that any tools that
are used by boost should be treated any differently than
any libraries used by boost.

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

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