On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:53:34PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:40:56PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > > On 01/21/2016 04:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > >> So is it a problem that compiling in C++11 mode is broken with gcc 4.6? > > >> I > > >> would guess not. > > > I guess it also depends how much space for error we have... > > > Richard, do you plan to release one intermediate 2.1.x or you just > > > waiting for the final one? > > > > How far out do we realistically think 2.2.0 is? I am thinking end of > > February, but if it gets delayed any further we might think about an > > intermediate release. > > I think end of February is realistic. Beta should be soon, just need > Guillaume's set of patches to git a final review, and Georg also is > trying to look into an issue that Stephan has reported. After beta I do > not think developers are planning many non-trivial commits so whether we > achieve end of February for a final release will depend on what issues > our beta testers find and on how long it takes us to fix those issues.
Richard, I just wanted to give an update that I no longer think the end of February is realistic for the final release. The good news is that soon it will be possible to compile on Windows from the tar ball, which is nice to have fixed. I think we will need to release a beta3 in order to fix one more set of these issues. Then, I will do some advertising of beta3 on various sites. I imagine we want at least a couple of weeks of testing, and I also imagine we will need to fix some issues that are revealed from that testing. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
