Re: [boost] Proposal for radically altered approach to releases

From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 13:00:12

On 5/17/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> 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
> >> repository.
> >
> > 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
> > stable.
> >    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.
>

How long do regression tests take to run?  My understanding was that they
took a while.  If a library maintainer is allowed to merge into stable while
a regression test is taking place, does the stable branch remain untested
until the regression testing takes place again (two days later), or does it
kick off another regression test?

I'm unclear how the flow of events take place if you don't lock for
regression testing.

--Michael Fawcett