Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-09 11:14:56
On 9 February 2012 13:46, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> On 8 February 2012 14:37, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> This might have been mentioned before, but gitflow seems to be ideal.
>>> See  for an explanation of the branching model and  for an
>>> optional tool which automates workflows that adopt the model.
>> The problem that we face with something like gitflow is testing. We
>> only have the infrastructure for testing two branches so we can't
>> adequately test feature branches.
> Stop right here. You seem to be writing this on the assumption that
> with git, we'd still have two separate source trees, one for the
> development branch and one for the release/master branch. One of the
> exciting things of git is exactly that you can abandon that situation.
I was writing about the limits of our regression testing system, not
the limits of our version control system. We need to frequently run
our tests on compilers and platforms that we don't have access to, so
we rely on volunteers running the test suite regularly. They currently
only do that on two branches.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk