31 Aug 02:32
Re: [Boost-users] [filesystem][xpressive] Hotfix patches available for 1.36.0
David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
2008-08-31 00:32:03 GMT
2008-08-31 00:32:03 GMT
on Sat Aug 30 2008, "Mat Marcus" <mat-lists-AT-emarcus.org> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51 AM, David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> wrote: > >> With apologies for the sales message: my company's Enterprise Support >> program offers the closest possible equivalent of point releases for >> Boost. We might be able to help you. Oops! I was pretty sure I didn't send that to the list, but I unfortunately left the list in the Cc: field. My apologies to all. > Thanks for the note, Dave. I'm afraid that I didn't make my point very > clearly. I am not looking for support for boost, nor am I in > particularly in favor of dot-releases, except when necessary. I'm > concerned about the boost "brand" and the perceived quality of the > officially released versions. What gives me trouble is when I lobby > for groups to upgrade to 1.35.0 and they pushback saying that no one > should upgrade since there's a "serious runtime bug in windows > threads" or "filesystem doesn't even compile". If such claims are > accurate then I would have expect some action to be taken (beyond > "wait for the next release", or "seek out the appropriate experimental > hotfix"). One approach would be to produce a dot release. No doubt > there are other approaches. I'd be interested to hear of them. Anyway, thanks for saying all that explicitly; that pretty much echoes my discomfort with our current direction. > Reliability, especially for mature core components, trumps new > features when it comes to proliferating boost in our environment. My > posts can be viewed as one data point that the perception of > world-class reliability has weakened a bit in 1.35.0. I haven't worked > with 1.36.0 long enough to know whether this was a one-time fluke. I don't think it was a fluke, though I hope it will turn out to have been only one time. Among other things, we dramatically reduced the number of platforms for which a clean sheet of tests was a release requirement. I have been working on getting an Suse Linux x86_64 bundle ready for an enterprise customer and there are basic issues on x86_64 Linux that AFAICT would have been addressed had we been testing there as a release requirement. -- -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RSS Feed