Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-10 10:14:28

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
>
>> Mika Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/09/2012 04:10 PM, Julien Nitard wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't fit in my small brain when I try to imagine it. Sorry :(
>>>> I guess it's time people on both sides fire their slide editors so that I
>>>> (and hopefully others) can have a better view of the problem and
>>>> the solutions
>>>
>>> This has pictures:
>>>
>>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>>
>> A side-by-side visual comparison would probably be a good idea. I'm
>> working on such a picture, I hope to send it tomorrow.
>
> As promised:
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3512486/boost_branching_model.pdf (82 kB)

Wow! Thanks a lot for your efforts!

> Note (1): my depiction of the current Boost workflow might be
> inaccurate. If you see a way to improve the image, please go ahead or
> let me know what needs to be changed.

Looks good, so far. I have several questions:
1) What are all the steps which are not annotated? Updates by authors
which do not work on stuff in my working set?
2) What happens to that abandoned branch? Will it remain publicly visible?
3) What exactly is the purpose of the blue branch?
4) Will there be one big boost repository? Or will every library have
their own sub repository?

> Note (2): to assist those who might want to make derived works, I also
> made the original SVG file available. Please note that the work is
> licensed under CC BY-SA (refer to the file for a URL).
> The file may contain parts that are encoded in extensions to SVG that
> are specific to my editor (Inkscape); if the file doesn't work with
> your own editor, let me know and I'll produce a "neutral" version.
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3512486/boost_branching_model.svg (119 kB)
>
> Note (3): while this image helps to explain my point in [1], it turns
> out from [2] that I didn't actually address Daniel James' point. I'll
> return to the testing issue in a new reply to [2].
>
> HTH,
> -Julian
>
> 1. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/02/190257.php
> 2. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/02/190269.php

Thanks for further clarification,
Thomas