From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-18 19:33:22
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Jul 18 2008, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>> Since I don't enjoy reverting changes when I don't have the time (I'm in
>>>> the middle of my own product release). And since Boost is nearing the
>>>> end of a release cycle. *ALL* tool changes are hereby *FROZEN* except
>>>> for emergency fixes. Any changes must be approved by Beman or myself.
>>>> And such changes must include making sure Boost testing runs adequately
>>>> in *both* a Windows platform and a Unix platform. This means going to
>>>> the boost-root/status directory and running the tests for *at least one*
>>>> library, but preferably all of them.
>>>> Thank you for paying attention.
>>> Pardon me, but what the hell? Do I really need to explain that branches in
>>> version control systems are intended specifically so that you don't have
>>> to *SHOUT IN EMPHASIZED UPPERCASE* whenever development branch, also known as
>>> trunk, gets broke? Or do we to understand that 1.36.0 beta 1, which is due
>>> due days ago, is going to be rolled from trunk? Or for some unknown reason,
>>> the testing process for release branch uses tools from random other branch?
>> 1. Trunk is not the "development" branch. We've said in the past, as
>> part of the new release procedures, that it should be maintained in a
>> stable form. And that "development" should be done in branches as
>> needed by individuals. This hold for tools just as much as it holds
>> for libraries.
> I've said that over and over, but I don't remember ever reaching
> consensus on it. Regardless, I don't think we can expect such an
> important policy to stick unless we can point at a web page that says
> so. Care to build one?
Well it was part of the reworked release plans:
Although it does say trunk is closer to a "stable development" branch.
But it does make it clear most work should be done in other branches.
Should I make a different page?
Perhaps this is one of those situations where the "trunk" term is so
overwhelmingly prejudiced to mean a free-for-all branch that it's better
to just rename it to something else. And move libraries to "modular"
(referred to in the past as per library) branches, like the sandbox, and
how I've been suggesting for years now.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail