Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-10 11:09:01
Daniel James wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 15:01, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
> You've actually over-estimated our process. We never do a complete
> merge from trunk to release, just either cherry-pick changes, or do a
> sub-tree merge. There are often long neglected changes in trunk -
> which is a major problem with the current system.
Good to hear that at least I didn't under-estimate it. :-)
I guess the difference between a merge with manual exceptions and
cherry picking is only gradual, but I strongly agree neither is ideal.
>> Note (3): while this image helps to explain my point in , it turns
>> out from  that I didn't actually address Daniel James' point. I'll
>> return to the testing issue in a new reply to .
> Having thought about it a bit, it might be the case that I exaggerated
> the issue. It certainly matters to me, but I'm not sure about other
> developers. A lot of the newer libraries don't put much effort into
> supporting the more obscure compilers.
Perhaps, but I think there is also another reason why the testing
issue is not as severe as it may seem. I'll post about it tomorrow.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk