Re: [boost] 1.35 release approach (was [1.34.0] Deadline)

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 10:25:27

"Doug Gregor" <dgregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:B544C55C-9230-4562-A43C-3DC5862B9F70_at_osl.iu.edu...
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>> Doug Gregor wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it's a pain. However, my experience with managing the 1.33
>>> release series (and watching the 1.34 release series) tells me that
>>> this is the right way forward. With each release, effort has gone
>>> into bug-fixes for the release branch while HEAD has become the Wild
>>> West, literally falling apart in the interim.
>>
>> I understand the reasoning. But consider the point of view of
>> someone whose
>> portions of HEAD are as stable as the 1.34 branch. He is now being
>> punished
>> for doing his job well.
>
> I know. I, too, have a bunch of stable code on HEAD that is going to
> be a pain to move over. To help ease this transition, I'll come up
> with the appropriate "svn merge" commands to make it easy to pull
> changes from HEAD into the development branch. Then, it should be
> only a small matter to test them locally and commit them to the
> development branch. If someone does cause problems with such a
> commit, Subversion makes it very, very ease to revert those
> changes... and we will.

Two questions:

1. Does anyone could tell me, if I have any code I need to merge?
2. How soon "revert" is triggered?  I mean, let's say I committed some code 
that I tested only on compilers I have access to and it fails on others how 
much time do I have to fix?

Gennadiy