Re: [boost] 1.34 Release Plan - an alternative view

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-26 11:07:07

"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 22:30 2006-01-25, Robert Ramey wrote:
>>Thomas Witt wrote:
>> > I have doubts that we have the infrastructure in place that would be
>> > needed for this. This might be different once we switched to
>> > subversion.
>>
>>I'm quite sure we don't have the infrastructure in place.  My motivation
>>is to to start a discussion that might result in movement to such
>>an infrastructure.  The last cycle lasted from july (initial projected
>>release date)
>
> I thought someone originally said release on April 15.
> btw, I notice we're planning on (again <sigh>) putting all the 
> release stuff on a "tagged branch" then _manually_ changing all the 
> regression test machines to test on the "release branch" with all the 
> chaos that attends.

How much effort is that _manual_ change?  More than a couple <sigh>s
worth?

>
> I won't argue this time, I'll simply summarize.  Leave the release 
> stuff on the HEAD branch and tell developers who want to mess around 
> with stuff that's NOT going to be in 1.34 to simply make their OWN 
> branch and go work on it.

I agree with Victor; keeping the trunk in releaseable state is the
right thing to do.  On the other hand, anytime we do a point release,
testers will have to be operating on a branch, so I don't see how this
is going to help _them_ very much.

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