Subject: Re: [boost] [1.48.0] Schedule discussion
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-20 16:14:25
On 20 June 2011 21:03, Christophe Henry
<christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I understand the theory, but I like the routine of planing in 3 months
> cycles. Uncomplicated and I know when the release branch is going to be
> closed when the calendar does not work.
> A release after 5 weeks is likely to force me to maintain 2 versions.
> Frankly, I'd have preferred to wait a week more and get Boost.Move into the
> 1.47.
The release isn't after 5 weeks, the beta is. Including Boost.Move
would add more than a week's delay, our policy is to allow plenty of
time between adding a new library to the release branch and the beta.
That's why I was saying that we'd need to make sure new libraries are
ready to merge when the release branch opens.