From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-23 13:29:02
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Aug 23 2007, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Thu Aug 23 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't generally accepted SVN setup be:
>>>> /trunk (same as current trunk)
>>>> RC_1_35_1... (snapshot when tarball is created)
>>>> RC_1_35 (next release in being updated)
>>> Yes, that would be usual, and it's roughly what I was going to suggest
>>> (the tag RC_1_35_1 should be something like 1_35_1a1, because we may
>>> end up releasing multiple release candidates for a given Boost
>>> version). Is there a good reason not to follow it?
>> This is why I asked for a rationale ;-) The two reasons Beman gave (one
>> of which I guessed):
>> * To make the permissions easier to manage. (my words)
>> * Focal point for casual browsers to find release related trees.
>> (Beman's words)
That would work, and avoid having two directories named trunk. OTOH it
now has two directories named 1_35_0.
Is there any point having two copies of the final for a release?
Wouldn't it be potentially less confusing for the release manager to
move 1_35_0 from svn/boost/branches/release to svn/boost/release at the
time of release? And since there would only be one release
work-in-progress directory at a time under branches/release, the release
level could be eliminated.
So after 1.35.0 ships, the tree would look like:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk