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, and for at least the last two releases we've shipped with just one boost version. What's changed? Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature