Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-28 15:09:51

on Fri Feb 10 2012, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Heller
> <thom.heller_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>>
>> Well, i still like to believe that one of boost's strengths is the large
>> platform support.
>> This is also the reason why I believe that a branching model is not a
>> good solution for boost. Here is why:
>
>>
>> When i develop a new feature i do that on trunk, whenever i feel
>> confident that the feature works as i expected it, i commit it. After a
>> couple of days the test cycled, and i see on which platforms these tests
>> fail and i try to fix it. This is where I have problems with this whole
>> branching model, when will my features i pushed to a branch be tested? I
>> actually believe that despite the possible ease of development and
>> contribution such a model actually leads to a unstable main branch or
>> trunk.
>> I think testing should be a concern, and i would rather like to see a
>> discussion about test improvements than VCS. However, if a different VCS
>> means easier testing (for the test runners), I am all for it. I am
>> curios to hear more about that!
>>
>>
> Well that reminds me of a post expressing a similar thought about branching
> models vs. testing <
> http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/09/branching-strategy-is-not-a-remedy-for-instability/>.
> What I take from it in the context of Boost.. Is that Boost is stable
> because we have a rather simple and testing-centric non-branching model.

Another interpretation: Boost is stable because working on it has become
unwieldly, and projects don't change as often as they should :-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com