From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 07:50:09
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> on Tue May 01 2007, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov-AT-mmltd.net> wrote:
> > Jeff Garland wrote:
> >> BTW, I don't know if this has been discussed much, but the plan for
> >> subversion switchover, as I understand it, is to take 1.34 as the svn
> >> HEAD and force all work unstable stuff on the CVS HEAD to be brought
> >> over using the new process.
> > That would be very impolite.
> I'm not sure this transition *can* be a "polite" process if it's going
> to work. That said, I'm open to suggestions.
Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. Am I right in assuming that the idea
is to make 1.34 the svn stable branch and the current CVS HEAD the svn
After all the only other way to move towards Beman's process would be to
allow bug fixes only on HEAD until it becomes stable, whenever that may
happen. Suddenly the first alternative becomes way more attractive :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk