Re: [boost] 1.35 release approach (was [1.34.0] Deadline)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-05 08:34:30

on Sat May 05 2007, "Gregory Dai" <gregory.dai-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/07, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> on Fri May 04 2007, Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 18:30 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> >> That isn't at all what I had in mind. Rather, a release, say 1.35 would
>> >> start with the previous release - 1.34 in this case. Developers, who
>> >> have been working in devel (which is equivalent to the old HEAD),
>> >> branch/tag their code at the point they think it is OK as "stable".
>> Then
>> >> when it comes time to do a release a script run by the release manager
>> >> tries to merge code for the library from "stable" to the release
>> >> candidate branch (working in library dependency order, with cycles
>> >> broken when necessary).
>> >
>> > I'm a bit confused... is "stable" a branch, or just a way to refer to
>> > certain points in the development of a library?
>>
>> What's the difference (in the SVN world)?

<snip long explanation>

> Hope this helps in terms of concept.

Thanks.  Though I know how SVN works (which is sorta why I asked the
question), I'm sure the elaboration will be useful to many here.  I
guess you're saying that if "stable" was a branch, people would be
doing direct development there, and if not, people would periodically
"svn cp" code from their development branch into stable.

Seems like we want the latter; i.e. "stable" is not a branch.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com