From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 15:51:18
"Emil Dotchevski" <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> As a Boost developer, if a dependency takes too much time to stabilize,
>>> sever ties with it and reimplement the parts I need. This is rare since
>>> have low tolerance for dependencies anyway. :-)
>> What if you depend on serialization or GUI lib or XML parser. It might
>> be possible to "reimplement" all your dependencies. And this is not a
>> practive in general IMO. Since you are causing breakage to "single
>> definition rule" on library level.
> There are really only two possibilities:
> 1) fix the GUI lib, or
> 2) sever ties with it, reimplement the parts you need, and explain in the
> documentation how a GUI lib can be hooked by the user.
or use older version of GUI library that you know works.
>>> I understand that this mindset may be unusual. Still, I find the idea
>>> the trunk is assumed to be unstable a bit odd. The trunk should be
>>> and everyone should work to keep it that way.
>> If trunk is stable, how do I test my development?
> If trunk is not stable, what motivation do you have for testing your code?
I don't care about trunk in general at all. I don't believe we need a notion
of boost trunk whatsoever. I've got trunk version of my library I need to
test. And my library depends on particular versions (possible truck) of
>> If I am done with my development when can I put it into "stable" trunk?
> As soon as you're reasonably sure that it wont break anything.
How can I be "reasonably sure" (yet another "grey" term) until I run the
tests. And to run the tests I need to commit the changes. This is chicken
and egg problem.
>> What if I break something?
> Then you have everyone screaming, and you hope that you can do a quick fix
> before someone reverts your changes to make the trunk stable again.
What If I am working on port for new compiler? I don't want anyone to test
agains my trunk version until I am done. And it may take me month (beasue I
went on vacation right in a middle;0)
>> What if N libraries merged their changes the same time.
> This is not possible, changes are atomic.
Within an our? Some cozy satuday evening ....
>> How long will it take t osort it out?
> It'll certainly take less time to sort out compared to if the trunk is
> unstable (and everyone is more tolerant to bad commits.)
*Why* anyone but me should care about my bad commit?
In reliable system no one should.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk