Subject: Re: [boost] RE process (prospective from a retired FreeBSD committer)...
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 04:27:24
Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> >> 2. Ours 'merge to release branch' process has the advantage that
>> >> even if somebody breaks library X in trunk completely, he might
>> >> just forget to merge it to release. So, we get improved stability,
>> >> at the cost of slow progress. It's often the case that somebody
>> >> forgets to merge changes to release branch, especially for
>> >> patches and fixes applied outside of one's official libraries.
>> >> So, in comparison, to achieve the same rate of changes and quality,
>> >> (1) requires discipline with commits and checking test results,
>> >> while (2) requires the same, and additional dancing and coordination
>> >> with merges. So, (2) is strictly more complex and error prone, and
>> >> should only be done if specific maintainers want separate branches
>> >> for their components.
>> > Anyone can make a separate branch at any time no matter which
>> > procedure is used.
>> And? (2) still requires more effort.
> No argument. I am just saying that the one condition under which you
> say 2 "should only be done" isn't even really valid.
I disagree. Everybody can make a branch, but that's always additional
overhead, and it's extra overhead when you have to coordinate merging
(or other form of inclusion) of that branch into release with release
managers. So, you are proposing that using a branch and coordinating
with release managers be required from every Boost developer, which
is just creating more work.
>> >> >> What you propose breaks this useful thing, because:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Only release managers "pull" into the unified thing
>> >> >
>> >> > Not really. The individual library developers determined which
>> >> > versions will be automatically pulled into the unified thing by
>> >> > tagging their individual releases as STABLE.
>> >> There are two problems here:
>> >> 1. Just like library developers forget to merge to release, they
>> >> will forget to tag those 'releases'
>> > That's totally up to the library developer. Library developers
>> > generally care Boost contains an up-to-date version of their
>> > libraries, so they will be motivated to remember.
>> "will"? In practice, right now, developers do forget.
> This line of argument eventually devolves into "library maintainers
> will forget to check their changes in at all, so they should work on a
> network share that we snapshot for release." I think marking a change
> as ready for release should be a fairly conscious decision, and one
> that's separate from saying "let's test this code out." As long as
> that's the case, someone can forget. IMO the trade-off is well worth
I think that running "xxx commit" should be a conscious decision. It's
not at all clear to me that after that, additional conscious decisions
should be required.
>> And again, there are often commits made by those who are not
>> official maintaners of library X (because X might not even have
>> maintainers). The chances of such changes of falling through are
>> even higher.
> I don't see how. Right now someone has to explicitly decide which
> changes are moved to the release branch, and something equivalent
> will happen
Right now, any developer can do this himself, without depending on
somebody else to pick up the changes.
>> >> 2. Because 'git cherry-pick' is fundamentally unable to record
>> >> any mergeinfo, this means that any time you want to merge a
>> >> single specific fix to release branch, you would have problems.
>> > What release branch? Who said anything about cherry-pick? What
>> > problems?
>> Suppose you have library X with 200 new changes. For next release, it is
>> necessary to include one of those changes.
> You cherry-pick that commit onto the branch in X's repo that currently
> points at X's last release.
And as we've determined, we have chances of running into merge conflicts
>> >> >> - Release managers only pull "releases",
>> >> >
>> >> > Which can be much more frequent than what we do at Boost.
>> >> Oh. I think everybody thinks that our current rate of releases is
>> >> almost-too-often already.
>> > Surely you realize that the release rate for
>> > individual libraries does not have to affect the release rate for
>> > Boost?
>> First, in "release managers only pull releases", above, we are
>> surely talking about Boost release managers?
> Yes. We are talking about them "pulling" the releases of individual
> libraries, not of Boost.
>> Second, could you name, exactly, all libraries whose developers
>> expressed a need for individual releases?
> No, of course I can't name all of them exactly. Can you? I doubt it.
It's you who is on the mission to prove this modularization effort
is gonna help anybody.
>> >> >> which, together with delays added by release managers, means that
>> >> >> a fix to a component will be added to the unified thing after
>> >> >> considerable delay
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't see where the delay comes from.
>> >> Either release managers look at the thing they merge (which adds
>> >> considerable delay), or they don't, in which case direct push to
>> >> release branch is more efficient.
>> > They don't look, unless there are test failures or other problems.
>> > And they don't merge. At most we're talking about updating submodule
>> > references.
>> Which still has to be done manually?
> No. From above: "The individual library developers determined which
> versions will be automatically pulled into the unified thing" by which
> I mean there's a "button" release managers can push to assemble a
> collection of the latest release versions of all the libraries in the
When is this button pushed? If it's pushed right before release, it
means the release state was never tested together. If you want to have it
pushed regularly, what are guarantees it will be pushed? And if you want
it to be pushed automatically, why don't just have developers push
into release branch directly?
>> >> Strangely, I know of other examples. Say, KDE, which is zillion
>> >> times bigger than Boost, has relatively small number of separate git
>> >> repositories,
>> > They're trying to fix that, IIUC.
>> Oh? It does not seem like any split of kdelibs is immediately
>> forthcoming, or even discussed with such activity as we're having
> IIUC there is strong interest within at least part of the KDE
> community in following a Ryppl-like modularized approach. They have
> been looking into various kinds of package management infrastructure
> for this job. I'll be happy to try to find out more if you want.
Mailing list pointers will help.
>> Maybe, that suggest that we're actually solving wrong problem?
> Exactly the opposite. KDE's moving in that direction IIUC; FreeBSD is
> moving in that direction. I'm confident we could quickly find 10
> other projects that are trying to modularize and zero modularized
> projects that are trying to switch to a monolithic organization. When
> have you ever heard of that happening?
Nice question. Let me avoid answering it and ask whether you are aware
of many modularizations whereby a component the size of boost::any is
split into a separate git repository?
>> > The problem isn't where the code is located, it's:
>> > a. how much coordination is required to get things done
>> Yes. And given that right now, coordination basically boils down to
>> library authors merging their things before deadline (or not merging),
>> and given that merge is a single command,
> svn switch, svn merge, svn switch == a single command?
I somehow manage with just svn merge ;-)
> But anyway,
> that's irrelevant because...
>> it's not clear to me how you are improving on that.
> ...it's not about the number of commands, it's about the sense of
> speed and freedom with which library developers can operate.
Okay. Though for me, nothing beats the speed and freedom of
having my changed put to release branch directly.
-- Vladimir Prus Mentor Graphics +7 (812) 677-68-40
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk