On July 9, 2014 08:55:04 AM Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:39:38 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > On July 9, 2014 08:15:27 AM Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:03:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > That leaves two Boost versions 1.54 and 1.55, which made me realize > > > > that > > > > the transition tracker is too pessimistic. Right now 1.54 is > > > > considered > > > > "bad", but it shouldn't be. > > > > > > Why not? I thought the whole point was moving things from 1.54 to 1.55. > > > > No, I don't think so. In my view, the goal is to release with at most 2 > > boost versions. The reason for keeping multiple versions is precisely to > > avoid having to do hard transitions [1] and boost-defaults was proposed > > [2] to keep the sourceful uploads to a minimum. > > > > This had been working well (in my view) since 2009. Somewhere along the > > line the release team started demanding boost-defaults use the transition > > tracker. I don't quite understand why. But if we're going to use a > > tracker, IMHO the transition to track is AWAY from the oldest boost > > (1.49) to the two newer ones. > > We removed 1.49 from testing months ago, Sure, but there remains an open bug to remove it from unstable. > and for at least the last two > releases we've shipped with just one boost version. What's changed? I don't think anything has changed. In my view, the goal is to release with at most two versions. So if we have just one, that's fine. Best, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.