Re: [boost] Proposal for radically altered approach to releases

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 12:37:22

"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:ud5eiorfd.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> A draft proposal is available at
>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/beman/release_overview.html.
>>>
>>> I've put a fair amount of thought into this proposal, and have run some
>>> Subversion simulations to make sure it works smoothly.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>
>> Mostly great.  I'm concerned about these time slots.  They don't seem
>> necessary in principle since subversion has atomic commits, and they
>> seem like they could introduce spurious lock contention on the
>> repository.
>
> Point taken, although I'm not sure how serious a problem it is.
>
> If it is a real problem, maybe something link this:
>
>    Step one: developers during the week merge into a "next" branch of 
> stable.
>    Step two: once a cycle (tentatively weekly), a single merge of the "next" 
> branch into stable head is done.

I still don't understand why we'd bother with either approach.  What
problem are you solving.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com