Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
Successfully built rc2 on Mac for 03, 11, 17, 2a.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:03 PM Marshall Clow via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>
> -- The Release managers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
initiating command:

$ ./b2 toolset=clang variant=release cxxstd=11,14,17,20 --layout=versioned
-j64 stage

error:

error: Name clash for
'<p/home/rhodges/.local/src/boost_1_75_0/stage/lib>libboost_atomic-clang11-mt-x64-1_75.so.1.75.0'
error:
error: Tried to build the target twice, with property sets having
error: these incompatible properties:
error:
error:     -  <cxxstd>11
error:     -  <cxxstd>14
error:
error: Please make sure to have consistent requirements for these
error: properties everywhere in your project, especially for install
error: targets.

I think I've been told before that this is not actually an error because
the cxxstd is not part of the ABI.
However, it seems to me that this position will become untenable as C++
evolves.




On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 08:03, Marshall Clow via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>
> -- The Release managers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>


--
Richard Hodges
[hidden email]
office: +442032898513
home: +376841522
mobile: +376380212

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Clang11, Fedora 33:

with:

$ ./b2 toolset=clang variant=release cxxstd=20 --layout=versioned -j64 stage

Many warnings like this:

clang-linux.compile.c++.without-pch
bin.v2/libs/locale/build/clang-linux-11.0.0/release/cxxstd-20-iso/link-static/threadapi-pthread/threading-multi/visibility-hidden/std/std_backend.o
In file included from libs/locale/src/std/std_backend.cpp:9:
./boost/locale/localization_backend.hpp:109:18: warning:
'auto_ptr<boost::locale::localization_backend>' is deprecated
[-Wdeprecated-declarations]
            std::auto_ptr<localization_backend> get() const;
                 ^
/usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/10/../../../../include/c++/10/backward/auto_ptr.h:287:7:
note: 'auto_ptr<boost::locale::localization_backend>' has been explicitly
marked deprecated here
    } _GLIBCXX_DEPRECATED;
      ^


On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 08:03, Marshall Clow via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>
> -- The Release managers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>


--
Richard Hodges
[hidden email]
office: +442032898513
home: +376841522
mobile: +376380212

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
With:

./b2 toolset=clang stdlib=libc++ variant=release cxxstd=20 -j64 stage

warnings in locale:

clang-linux.compile.c++.without-pch
bin.v2/libs/locale/build/clang-linux-11.0.0/release/cxxstd-20-iso/link-static/stdlib-libc++/threadapi-pthread/threading-multi/visibility-hidden/icu/formatter.o
libs/locale/src/icu/formatter.cpp:210:27: warning: implicit conversion from
'std::__1::numeric_limits<long>::type' (aka 'long') to 'double' changes
value from 9223372036854775807 to 9223372036854775808
[-Wimplicit-const-int-float-conversion]
                if(date > limits_type::max() || date < limits_type::min())
                        ~ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 08:03, Marshall Clow via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>
> -- The Release managers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>


--
Richard Hodges
[hidden email]
office: +442032898513
home: +376841522
mobile: +376380212

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/12/20 11:25 AM, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:

> Clang11, Fedora 33:
>
> with:
>
> $ ./b2 toolset=clang variant=release cxxstd=20 --layout=versioned -j64 stage
>
> Many warnings like this:
>
> clang-linux.compile.c++.without-pch
> bin.v2/libs/locale/build/clang-linux-11.0.0/release/cxxstd-20-iso/link-static/threadapi-pthread/threading-multi/visibility-hidden/std/std_backend.o
> In file included from libs/locale/src/std/std_backend.cpp:9:
> ./boost/locale/localization_backend.hpp:109:18: warning:
> 'auto_ptr<boost::locale::localization_backend>' is deprecated
> [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
>              std::auto_ptr<localization_backend> get() const;
>                   ^
> /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/10/../../../../include/c++/10/backward/auto_ptr.h:287:7:
> note: 'auto_ptr<boost::locale::localization_backend>' has been explicitly
> marked deprecated here
>      } _GLIBCXX_DEPRECATED;
>        ^

https://github.com/boostorg/locale/issues/27

This had also come up on this list, I think.

PS: Please, don't top post.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Windows/Visual Studio builds look good.


toolset     arch    compile Link    Execute
msvc-10.0   32      X       X       X
msvc-10.0   64      X       X       X
msvc-11.0   32      X       X       X
msvc-11.0   64      X       X       X
msvc-12.0   32      X       X       X
msvc-12.0   64      X       X       X
msvc-14.0   32      X       X       X
msvc-14.0   64      X       X       X
msvc-14.1   32      X       X       X
msvc-14.1   64      X       X       X
msvc-14.2   32      X       X       X
msvc-14.2   64      X       X       X

Compile means that the b2 command completed without errors
Link means that visual studio was able to link a sample executable to a
library (libboost_thread-vcXXX-mt[-gd]-1_XX.lib) generated
Execute means that the linked program executed without errors.

Full build results can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/teeks99/24ba113c7cada3da8959d02fd1d67079

Tom

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:02 AM Marshall Clow via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7
>  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>
> -- The Release managers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Nov 11, 2020, at 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/ <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>>
>
> The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
>
> 3f01d3e5dc822e151892040d4667e364ea808d208d2e49cc7a1802bd4da3d4cc  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.7z
> 9b75a80f845d4ae312e3c9151ffdfe3fed450973095e0a15c68d0be394f2f2df  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2
> 123519d4b056fbbd69e452db880abe2c7e55f21779d44a4d6b6c714d5c13c3ee  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz
> b73e01d22d5b3d2ff82f14a371e3974fab30448bf6ff5ac8b9c829539a19c2d7  boost_1_75_0_b1_rc2.zip
>
> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the
> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both
> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.

I have successfully built the libraries on Ubuntu 18.04

With gcc 7.0.5 with the following configurations:
* cxxstd=03
* cxxstd=11
* cxxstd=14
* cxxstd=17

And with Apple clang tip-of-tree with the following configurations:
* cxxstd=03
* cxxstd=11
* cxxstd=14
* cxxstd=17
* cxxstd=2a

— Marshall


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Nov 11, 2020, at 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/ <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>>

I should have mentioned this last night.

The changes from RC1 are:
* Fixes to Boost.Fiber to fix compilation problems on recent MSVC releases.

— Marshall


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/11/20 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
> at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>
When will be permitted to merge develop into release.  I thought there
would be an opportunity between RC1 and RC2.

I need to do this for both libraries I maintain: safe_numerics and
serialization

Robert Ramey


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/12/20 7:30 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 11/11/20 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
>> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now
>> available
>> at:
>>
>> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>>
> When will be permitted to merge develop into release.  I thought there
> would be an opportunity between RC1 and RC2.

The master branch will be open after the beta is released. The release
candidates were for the beta, so it has not yet been released.

Yes, RC of a beta is confusing and I wish we just used a single
nomenclature for pre-releases - either betas or RCs.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Nov 12, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 11/12/20 7:30 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> On 11/11/20 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
>>> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
>>> at:
>>>
>>> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>>>
>> When will be permitted to merge develop into release.  I thought there would be an opportunity between RC1 and RC2.
>
> The master branch will be open after the beta is released. The release candidates were for the beta, so it has not yet been released.
>
> Yes, RC of a beta is confusing and I wish we just used a single nomenclature for pre-releases - either betas or RCs.

The beta releases cause activity outside the boost community.
We want to minimize the number of beta releases (ideally, one per boost release).

Hence the trial runs (aka ‘RC’s)

— Marshall



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/12/20 8:00 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/12/20 7:30 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>> On 11/11/20 11:02 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
>>>> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available
>>>> at:
>>>>
>>>> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>
>>>>
>>> When will be permitted to merge develop into release.  I thought there would be an opportunity between RC1 and RC2.
>>
>> The master branch will be open after the beta is released. The release candidates were for the beta, so it has not yet been released.
>>
>> Yes, RC of a beta is confusing and I wish we just used a single nomenclature for pre-releases - either betas or RCs.
>
> The beta releases cause activity outside the boost community.
> We want to minimize the number of beta releases (ideally, one per boost release).

Why try minimizing it? And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
to consume downstream?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
> to consume downstream?

Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?

Clearly, under the Boost license, people can consume whatever they like.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
>> to consume downstream?
>
> Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?

No, I'm asking why is Boost trying to define its internal policies
(pre-release naming scheme) so that downstream consumers are encouraged
to use some pre-releases and discouraged to use others. To my mind, it
is the downstream consumers' decision as to which releases to use or
not. The only reasonable requirement on Boost should be to have stable
official releases. Whether we have pre-releases, how many of them and
how they are named is our convenience and a means to achieve the final
stable release goal.

And if downstream consumers are interested in pre-releasses, I don't see
why we should restrict them from using as many of the pre-releases as we
make. This would only provide more testing and ultimately improve the
quality of the final release.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Nov 12, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
>>> to consume downstream?
>> Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?
>
> No, I'm asking why is Boost trying to define its internal policies (pre-release naming scheme) so that downstream consumers are encouraged to use some pre-releases and discouraged to use others.

You are using the wrong tense here.

        Boost is not "trying to define”…
        Boost HAS defined …

You’re presupposing that this RCx for the beta releases is something new.
10 seconds of searching on my part found an email titled: "[boost] [1.40.0] Beta 1 release candidate available” dated August 10, 2009.

> To my mind, it is the downstream consumers' decision as to which releases to use or not. The only reasonable requirement on Boost should be to have stable official releases. Whether we have pre-releases, how many of them and how they are named is our convenience and a means to achieve the final stable release goal.
>
> And if downstream consumers are interested in pre-releasses, I don't see why we should restrict them from using as many of the pre-releases as we make. This would only provide more testing and ultimately improve the quality of the final release.

They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the daily develop snapshots.
When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re attempting to promise some modicum of quality.

Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that.

— Marshall


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/12/20 11:57 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> And why it is Boost to decide which pre-releases
>>>> to consume downstream?
>>> Are you asking why is it up to Boost to decide how we label each build?
>>
>> No, I'm asking why is Boost trying to define its internal policies (pre-release naming scheme) so that downstream consumers are encouraged to use some pre-releases and discouraged to use others.
>
> You are using the wrong tense here.
>
> Boost is not "trying to define”…
> Boost HAS defined …
>
> You’re presupposing that this RCx for the beta releases is something new.
> 10 seconds of searching on my part found an email titled: "[boost] [1.40.0] Beta 1 release candidate available” dated August 10, 2009.

That was probably poor wording on my part, sorry. I was not implying
that this was a new policy. I have seen multiple Boost releases in the
past, and they followed the same procedure as this one. I meant that the
policy appears to be chosen to influence the downstream consumers.

>> To my mind, it is the downstream consumers' decision as to which releases to use or not. The only reasonable requirement on Boost should be to have stable official releases. Whether we have pre-releases, how many of them and how they are named is our convenience and a means to achieve the final stable release goal.
>>
>> And if downstream consumers are interested in pre-releasses, I don't see why we should restrict them from using as many of the pre-releases as we make. This would only provide more testing and ultimately improve the quality of the final release.
>
> They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the daily develop snapshots.
> When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re attempting to promise some modicum of quality.
>
> Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that.

Fair enough. I'm just not sure how useful that is - to users and to Boost.

 From users perspective, a beta is a beta, however you call it. And
many, if not all projects I'm familiar with that release betas, seem to
consider them the same way - as steps of preparation before the final
release, with gradually increasing quality. I mean, if you want a stable
release, you probably won't install a beta 1 of a Linux kernel. You
might even hesitate to install a .0 final release for good measure.
Depending on how adventurous you feel, you might install more early
betas for a spin.

For Boost, the current procedure seem to cause much confusion for
maintainers regarding when they may or may not merge to master and what
has and has not been released. I'm not sure if it has any pressure on
release managers, but I suspect it does, because they have to review
merge requests and release RCs in an expedited way.

PS: And I'd like to take this chance to thank the review management team
for doing this work. Please, don't take my posts as a complaint.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
Andrey Semashev wrote:

> I meant that the policy appears to be chosen to influence the downstream
> consumers.

No, the policy has been chosen in response to what downstream customers do.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:02 AM Marshall Clow wrote:
>
> The second release candidates for the 1.75.0 beta release are now available at:
>
> <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.75.0.beta1/source/>

Successfully built with GCC 10.2.1 on Linux x86_64 5.8.18-300 (Fedora
33) with c++03, 11, 14, 17, 20.

Glen

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

>> They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the
>> daily develop snapshots.
>> When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re
>> attempting to promise some modicum of quality.
>>
>> Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that.
>
> Fair enough. I'm just not sure how useful that is - to users and to
> Boost.
>
> From users perspective, a beta is a beta, however you call it. And
> many, if not all projects I'm familiar with that release betas, seem
> to consider them the same way - as steps of preparation before the
> final release, with gradually increasing quality. I mean, if you want
> a stable release, you probably won't install a beta 1 of a Linux
> kernel. You might even hesitate to install a .0 final release for good
> measure. Depending on how adventurous you feel, you might install more
> early betas for a spin.
>
> For Boost, the current procedure seem to cause much confusion for
> maintainers regarding when they may or may not merge to master and
> what has and has not been released. I'm not sure if it has any
> pressure on release managers, but I suspect it does, because they have
> to review merge requests and release RCs in an expedited way.
FWIW: It makes sense to have it this way. The RCs are a way for Boost to
internally test changes so the target audience is mainly Boost
developers. Master branches are frozen, only approved bugfixes are
allowed inbetween RCs. So no regressions should be introduced at this point.

The beta then has a larger audience where package maintainers etc. can
test, if everything still compiles in their environments which is often
different from Boosts and the test runners. Ideally nothing but trivial
bugfixes should be added at this point. And if nothing comes up the beta
state can be label final (which is what others do with RCs)
BTW: I'm a bit confused why the safe_numerics and serialization "develop
to master sync" is allowed at this point. It doesn't fit my
understanding of the release process but maybe the changes are small enough.

Changing that now may break the scripts package maintainers etc have set
up and causes them to employ hacks to deal with the pre- and
post-this-change situation.

Alex




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] Boost 1.75.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 2

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Nov 15, 2020, at 11:46 PM, Alexander Grund via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>> They’re all welcome to test any/all of our builds - including the daily develop snapshots.
>>> When we release a beta version (and announce it to the world), we’re attempting to promise some modicum of quality.
>>>
>>> Trial runs (aka RCs) help ensure that.
>>
>> Fair enough. I'm just not sure how useful that is - to users and to Boost.
>>
>> From users perspective, a beta is a beta, however you call it. And many, if not all projects I'm familiar with that release betas, seem to consider them the same way - as steps of preparation before the final release, with gradually increasing quality. I mean, if you want a stable release, you probably won't install a beta 1 of a Linux kernel. You might even hesitate to install a .0 final release for good measure. Depending on how adventurous you feel, you might install more early betas for a spin.
>>
>> For Boost, the current procedure seem to cause much confusion for maintainers regarding when they may or may not merge to master and what has and has not been released. I'm not sure if it has any pressure on release managers, but I suspect it does, because they have to review merge requests and release RCs in an expedited way.
> FWIW: It makes sense to have it this way. The RCs are a way for Boost to internally test changes so the target audience is mainly Boost developers. Master branches are frozen, only approved bugfixes are allowed inbetween RCs. So no regressions should be introduced at this point.
>
> The beta then has a larger audience where package maintainers etc. can test, if everything still compiles in their environments which is often different from Boosts and the test runners. Ideally nothing but trivial bugfixes should be added at this point. And if nothing comes up the beta state can be label final (which is what others do with RCs)
> BTW: I'm a bit confused why the safe_numerics and serialization "develop to master sync" is allowed at this point. It doesn't fit my understanding of the release process but maybe the changes are small enough.

It wasn’t. Not until the beta was complete.

— Marshall

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12