From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-02 23:30:10
At Saturday 2005-04-02 19:52, you wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. <vawjr <at> rudbek.com> writes:
> > At Saturday 2005-04-02 16:57, you wrote:
> > >"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr <at> rudbek.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > the reason for the branch is to that those developers who need to
> work on
> > > > stuff NOT related to the release have someplace to put their "commits".
> > >
> > >In that case you and Doug have different things in mind.
> > I didn't see anything that Doug said that disagrees.
> > he hasn't said anything about people working on stuff other than the
>Doug said that the branch could happen at the point of release, and it would
>contain the release. You are suggesting that the branch happen before
>and that the release would not be on a branch. The only way to resolve these
>two ideas is to branch twice, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that one
I'm suggesting that we tag (with a branchable tag) the freeze point. If
you're going to work on stuff not going in 1.33 commit your changes on a
branch that you make from there. After the release, merge all your stuff
back onto the main branch. This way, all the developers (and testers)
working on the release continue as normal.
>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