From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-04 18:35:52
On Apr 4, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
>> I'll agree again. The changes I check in when we are in release mode
>> a release branch active) _always_ go to both the trunk and the
>> branch. The
>> branch doesn't help me in any way.
>> Apr 15: feature freeze
>> Release "when it's done"
> FWIW, I agree.
> In fact, it took some time to understand our current model becasue I
> had my
> mind setup with release-THEN-branch.
> I just couldn't get into the idea of working on something else than a
> release (once the release is sheduled). Even in my own projects, I
> move past a release without finishing it first; so I couldn't
> understood why
> was there an early branch. As Peter, I just have to _always_ propagate
> work into the Release branch simply becasue I wouldn't be working on
> anything but the release until it's finish.
Doesn't that assume that the work required for release is something
that you're interested in?
I'll provide a contrarian example. In the run-up to Boost 1.32.0, I'd
finished all that I wanted to do with the Graph library and had
stabilized it well before other libraries were ready (e.g., MPL, 'cause
they had just finished their book). But, I had lots more that needed to
go into the Graph library so that our work could continue. For me, the
release branch happened too late, and I ended up creating the
graph_devel_1_33_0 branch for everything that would go into 1.33.0
after 1.32.0 had branched. It was also a pain, just like checking into
a release branch.
Earlier branches and late branches all have benefits and problems. Only
shortening the time between freeze and branch solves them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk