From: Marshall Clow (marshall_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-23 12:25:37
At 7:19 PM +0300 5/23/08, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> I thought that was clear from previous messages, but I'll mention what
>> my understanding is... "branches/release" is for 1.36.0 *only*. There
>> needs to be another branch for 1.35.1 (perhaps
>> "branches/release_1_35_1") which I would guess the manager for the
>> 1.35.1 release would take care of by branching from
>Which would lose all fixes currently on the branch.
>> As for the starting point for 1.36, it's
>> always been the rolling "branches/release" i.e. 1.35.x, which is now the
>> 1.36.x branch :-) It also means that patches that go into the 1.35.1
>> branch would also likely need to go into the 1.36.x branch.
>Yep. This is how things were intended to work. The question is whether we
>need to reevaluate that. The single branches/release presupposes that only
>one release is active at a time. Given the proposed schedule, this can only
>be true if we drop the .1 releases. If we don't, it might be wise to revisit
>the old practice of using a separate branch for every release family -
>release_1_35, release_1_36, and so on. It might also be interesting to give
>the "starting point" question another look. I think that the trunk is quite
>competitive as a starting point for 1.36, because it is currently being
>integration tested, whereas release+merges is not.
So .... I guess the question is:
With a release of boost every 3 months, do we need point
releases (except in the case of a big mistake)? To put a very fine
point on it, is there a reason to do a 1.35.1 release as well as a
-- -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:marshall_at_[hidden]> It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.