Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-28 17:25:19

Dave Abrahams wrote:

> on Wed Feb 08 2012, Daniel James <> wrote:
>> 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. We really do need to test on a wide
>> variety of platforms as early as possible.
> The way we plan to handle this with Ryppl is that you check in a testing
> specification with your project. The testing specification is just a
> text file, something like this JSON:
> {
> <configname>: {
> dependencies: { /* dependency versions */
> <libname>: <git tree-ish>, ...
> },
> cmake: { /* properties passed to cmake */
> <key>: <value>, ...
> },
> platforms: [ <platform-string>, ... ]
> }, ...
> }
> Where you can request multiple configurations to be tested for commits
> on each branch. To get your in-development work tested, just publish a
> feature branch containing a test specification file to your public
> repository.
> The test results are then added to the commit using git notes.

How convenient will that be for the testers? How does this approach compare to the one discussed in ?

> I take for granted that we're going to have a modularized boost with a
> separate repository for each library (<>)
> and each library will have its own develop branch.

This sounds like a situation that calls for git-subtree, but maybe I understood git-subtree wrongly.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at