Re: [boost] [git/modularization] Suggested names for branches?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git/modularization] Suggested names for branches?
From: Steve M. Robbins (steve_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-09 14:06:18

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:58:25AM -0400, Dave Abrahams wrote:

> > The basic release workflow proposed sounds exactly like the current
> > one: it's a promotion/integration model.  As a consumer of Boost
> > libraries, I've frequently found reported bugs "fixed" when they enter
> > the development branch but it's very time consuming to ascertain
> > whether a given bug fix ever made it into a release.  Is there any
> > thought how to address this in the new workflow?
> 
> Well, the difference here is that individual maintainers decide when/how
> to release their own libraries.  

So are you saying that the Boost source control model will move from a
monolithic promotion model to a a fine-grained promotion model?  So
each library maintainer is going to push changes from "devel" to
"release" on their own?  I thought that's what happens now, so I don't
see the difference.

It's the promotion model itself that is, IMHO, broken.  Or at least, I
still haven't learned of a good way to handle issue tracking that
includes both the state of "fixed in devel" and "fixed in release".
The lack of this distinction is a source of frustration from my end.
On the other hand, handling this distinction manually would create
more procedure for maintainers fixing bugs.  There must be an
automated solution out there.

> A "boost release" will only ever
> contain some combination of released library versions, but individual
> maintainers can announce and release a new version of their own
> libraries at any time.  

So how is a boost release created?  Are you saying that anytime a
library maintainer makes a release, that a new release of Boost is
made?  

Or will boost be broken up into smaller modules with loose coupling
between them so that they can release on independent cycles?

Thanks,
-Steve