Subject: Re: [boost] Development Practices (Proposal Progress)
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 08:15:21
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 05:24:56 +0800,
> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > So my question would be:
> > - What would be the best way for me to solicit feedback on a proposal
> > that tweaks the current process? Is editing this wiki page the way or
> > should I create a new one?
> Create a new one... I don't think we want to tweak "the process." I
> think we want to create an alternative process for people who are
> interested in following a more modern, decoupled development model.
> Eventually, if it works, the other one will die of underuse. The
> thing is that you have to make sure that your proposal doesn't clash
> with the way we do things now: for example, it can't create
> significant new work for the release managers.
For example, I'd very much like to move both the libraries I maintain and my
release management work to Git. I've been using it for a while now on
various projects, including one very small (three contributors) distributed
project, and find Git preferable by a wide margin. But others will want to
stick with SVN at least for awhile. Because Git can track a Subversion
repository, it is probably possible to use both without undue trouble.
While I'm leery of anything that would "create significant new work for the
release managers" on an ongoing basis, I am willing to put in some extra
work during a transition.
Areas where I personally don't want any big changes yet are the Boost build
and regression testing systems. Alternatives for either of these systems
don't appear anywhere near ready for prime time WRT Boost.
The formal review system needs a drastic rework to make it more parallel and
remove bottlenecks, but I don't have anything beyond vague feelings about
how to do that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk