Re: [boost] [1.41][serialization] MSVC 9 crashes on compilation

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.41][serialization] MSVC 9 crashes on compilation
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 10:08:29

Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <troy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Eugene Wee wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> As an experiment, I've locked branches/release while I build a new
>>>> release candidate.
>>>>
>>>> One problem: It took just one minute shy of two hours to apply the
>>>> lock. That's no fun. Presumably it will take another two hours to
>>>> unlock it. As an aside, I wonder how long the equivalent operation
>>>> would have taken with Git?
>>> I am a Bazaar user, not a Git user, so pardon my ignorance: is there
>>> even an equivalent operation for Git? I would think that one would
>>> just use a local branch and thus be oblivious to any further changes
>>> committed, except when pulling from the remote release branch
>>> intentionally.
>> You're right, there is no such operation, the distributed architecture makes
>> it unnecessary.
> 
> The point isn't always just for the release manager to be oblivious to
> further changes, it may also be to prevent those further changes to
> the master server (or whatever Git calls it) in the first place. 

Yes, exactly.

 > I
> probably don't understand how the master server is updated and
> administered in a distributed environment. That will probably become
> obvious if I do some more reading.
> 

I found Linus Torvalds' Google Tech Talk enlightening:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8

-t