From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-11 13:56:11
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 07:37 AM 8/11/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> Beman Dawes wrote:
> >>> Assuming I'm release manager for 1.31.0, I'm going to publish explicit
> >>> release criteria for key platform/compiler pairs. Basically, the
> >>> criteria will be 100% accounting for all failures on those
> >>> platform/compiler pairs.
> >>
> >> While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see
> >> _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous
> >> release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are
> >> currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools
> >> to ensure it.
> >
> >I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on
> >compiler combinations they don't test with. For example, who is going
> >to address the one lexical_cast failure that's plaguing the 1.30.2
> >release? It's only on intel-7.1 with STLPort and looks for all the
> >world like a config problem.
>
> It can be very time consuming to track down the exact reason for
> failures. Thus we should focus our 1.31.0 effort on a small number of
> widely used compilers which don't have a lot of problems.
>
> For a lightly used toolset like intel-7.1 with STLPort, "looks for all
> the world like a config problem" seems like a good enough resolution
> to me.
In that case, can I release 1.30.2? I don't like having the 1.30.1
debacle hanging over my head.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com