From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-02 16:19:15
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> I don't think anyone should merge from the trunk ever. Why
>> interject a bunch of experimental code into my project. I have
>> my hands full just trying to find and fix my own errors.
> The "trunk" in Vladimir's mail likely refers to the "stable" branch.
> If development proceeds on branches, there is no other trunk, so
> stable becomes the trunk. You'll have to merge from it periodically
> to get the latest changes.
hmmm - we've been using "trunk" as its used in the current SVN
load which contains the code form the CVS HEAD. This has been
distinguished from "stable" which I believe that people have used
to refer to what has been called RC_1_34.
But basically you're correct. In a complete application of the proposed
practices there is no place for the current concept of "trunk" or HEAD
with all the experimental code.
In practice it will be all the code planed for the next "large - yearly"
release. Its basically a developement branch with a slow merge
> For such a development model, svk is probably a much better fit than
LOL - I'm sure there is better tool for everything somewhere. The
point is, that improving the tool is pointless if we're not exploiting
it in an effective manner. The current SVN (even CVS) is plenty
good enough for what we need.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk