From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 18:49:23
David Abrahams wrote:
>> We're running development tests on our local system against
>> the latest release. There is currently no real value in creating
>> a branch because that branch is never going to get tested
>> anywhere besides one's local machine anyway.
> Of course there's value:
> * If you are suddenly killed or your server implodes, your
> intermediate work is preserved.
> * You can collaborate with other Boosters through the repository.
> * Merging is easier and more reliable (using svnmerge.py, or the
> upcoming svn 1.5) because the revision control system knows where
> everything came from and where it's going.
> * Other people can observe and/or coordinate with development in
>> And you're correct, this doesn't change the fundamental release
>> procedures. It keeps the release procedures from making
>> our own lives difficult.
> And how did release procedures ever make our lives as developers
the long release cycle means that i have several sets of changes.
Fixes for the current release. Others which are in the head but
haven't been tested (except on my machine)
>> So from an individual developer's standpoint, its not really that
>> great a problem anymore.
> What isn't a problem?
If the trunk is going to be used as it has been - it will continue
to be a problem for boost but not for me personally as I don't use it
>> Except for the tools we have to use - which is a whole other thread.
> The one we ought to be spending keystrokes on. Or, better yet, work
Well, actually, I have made a modest contribution to the toolset with my
library status program. Admitidly, its not a large one but it did address
some of my issues. Of course, not everyone will find it useful, but that's
the way it is with everything. I don't find testing on the trunk useful.
The suggestion seems to have been made that I'm part of the problem
because I've brought up the issue that things aren't working. Dream on,
The situation isn't going to improve until changes are made and
and changes aren't going to be made until someone points them out
and makes the case. Beman's Proposal points them out and makes
the case. If people don't want to discuss it that's fine. I'm just
responding to arguments that Beman's Proposal won't work,
won't address the issue, etc. If one thinks that the discussion
isn't helpful then don't make the argument in the first place. My
posts (except for the very first) are only reponses to what I
see as ill - founded arguments to Beman's proposal.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk