From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 03:24:25
On 2007-08-02, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
With the fly-out branch approach for development, Peter is correct -
there is no difference between "trunk" and "stable" (and "mainline"):
you only need one, and that is what releases are generated (directly)
from. It is a branch that is *always* expected to pass the full unit
test suite, and any failures need to be addressed as a matter of
urgency. Or, of course, reverted.
The only thing that will be needed on top of the development branches
are "patch" branches for releases where *serious* bugs are found in a
release, which weren't covered by the testing.
(And yes, I have read Doug's post: I just think that fixing the
process for library delivery and fixing the tools can be done/thought
about in parallel.)
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk