From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-02 13:40:33
Phil Richards wrote:
> On 2007-06-02, AlisdairM <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I wonder if there is an easy way to add something to
>> explicit-failures-markup.xml when it is known a library will be
>> 'out-of-use' for extended periods of time?
>> [Downside would be we don't want to encourage this if we want to
>> support more frequent releases]
> I would have thought that the obvious(!) thing to do (after the move to
> subversion, when such thinhgs will be easier) is to say that when there
> is a breaking change to an interface that other libraries rely on, then
> that work *must* be carried out on a branch, and that branch is only a
> candidate for merging back to the trunk when all affected libraries have
> been updated.
> Yes, this might be annoying for the person making the change, but not
> half as annoying as having releases from the trunk blocked because some
> maintainer of an affected library is not able to immediately address
> the issue. (And this should be *expected* to be the case.)
Well, as far as I know, there wasn't any "release block" because of the
mentioned issued. We were all working towards 1.34 and it was also one
of reasons, I haven't pushed the matther harder.
The branching you have proposed could get quite nasty. If the dependency
tree is large (and there are lot of cases when it is) it would block the
development on a large number of libraries. The process would not be
very different from a release procedure and I don't see any reason why
to create another one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk