Re: [boost] [1.36.0] Libraries with unmerged changes?

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-12 02:42:36

On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:57 PM, James Sharpe wrote:

> 2008/7/11 David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:
[SNIP]
>> I am frankly not sure why Beman is inspecting the differences; it  
>> was my
>>>
>> presumption that we could do development in trunk without worrying  
>> about
>> it, because the release branch is explicitly separated.
>
> Indeed, I understand that he is making sure that developers have  
> merged
> changes they intended to merge; as I know a number of them missed the
> official merge cutoff date, but again learning from the kernel release
> process, the equivalent 'merge window' caught out some developers  
> initially
> but they were strict about it; I think that boost should take a  
> similar
> stance since the developers learnt that they had to get their  
> changes in
> during the window or wait for the next release, and once the  
> momentum of
> releases picked up this was less of an issue. It also has helped with
> maintaining stability; since developers will tend to concentrate on  
> working
> towards a particular release; if you know your changes are going to  
> take
> slightly longer to develop then you target the next release, and by  
> using
> DVCS this is easily done and doesn't ever create any confusion as the
> developer maintains his/her branch until its ready for integration  
> upon
> which point a integration request is made and either further, wider  
> testing
> occurs or it gets merged into the next release.

What's the obsession over a DVCS?  Wouldn't any VCS that supports  
branching (and merging), like our current Subversion, be sufficient?

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com