Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

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 <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> 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 http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/02/190418.php ?

> I take for granted that we're going to have a modularized boost with a
> separate repository for each library (<https://github.com/boost-lib>)
> 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.

-Julian