From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-31 01:00:09
At Saturday 2004-10-30 07:18, you wrote:
>At 03:38 AM 10/30/2004, Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> >That's exactly why I was proposing that the changes should go the other
> >way round, not from main to RC but from RC to main as the danger is
> >quite high that you merge something to RC that you didn't want to merge.
>We used to do it the way you suggest. We have had far less problems since
>we changed to the current procedures.
>IIRC, part of the problem with going from RC to main was that if that when
>the merge step got forgotten, there was often a considerable time delay
>before anyone realized there was a problem. That made it more difficult to
>figure out what was wrong.
>OTOH, if a merge from main to RC is forgotten then it is detected quickly
>because there are a lot of eyes looking at the RC and RC tests.
if you were merging the other way none of us testers would have had to
change our procedures and we'd be testing the main branch like
always. You'd detect the problem JUST as quickly
> Since the change is fresh in the developer's mind, the developer usually
> knows instantly what happened and can fix it quickly.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk