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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-29 21:54:39

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

> At 09:07 2006-01-26, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> nope, the testers will ONLY test on the HEAD... if someone thinks 
> they need to fix something, they can branch and test to their heart's 
> content.  When they think it's "fixed" they merge it back.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how this can work.  Let's say we have
version 1.54 on the HEAD.  Then people check in some perfectly good
changes for 1.55 to the HEAD.  Then we discover we need to release
1.54.1.  To make changes starting with the 1.54 state, we need a
branch.  How will we test 1.54.1 before releasing it?  Are you
suggesting 1.54.1 would go out without being tested as a complete
unit?

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