From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 12:37:22
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> A draft proposal is available at
>>> I've put a fair amount of thought into this proposal, and have run some
>>> Subversion simulations to make sure it works smoothly.
>>> What do others think?
>> Mostly great. I'm concerned about these time slots. They don't seem
>> necessary in principle since subversion has atomic commits, and they
>> seem like they could introduce spurious lock contention on the
> Point taken, although I'm not sure how serious a problem it is.
> If it is a real problem, maybe something link this:
> Step one: developers during the week merge into a "next" branch of
> Step two: once a cycle (tentatively weekly), a single merge of the "next"
> branch into stable head is done.
I still don't understand why we'd bother with either approach. What
problem are you solving.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk