Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Documentation for Git and Modular Boost conversion
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-18 09:57:25
on Mon Dec 17 2012, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Mon Dec 17 2012, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to re-iterate the idea that trunk and release
>>> libraries be tested against the next release (ie the current
>>> release branch).
>> Problems with the way your idea is expressed:
>> 0. I'm not sure you mean "release branch" as defined by gitflow, which
>> defines our branching policy. You might want to take a look at that.
>> 1. In the gitflow model, "release branches" are temporary. You need to
>> decide what to test against when there's no release branch.
>> 2. "The current release branch" is not specific enough. Each individual
>> library *and* the Boost super-project can all have release branches,
>> and they almost certain do not correspond to one another. The Boost
>> super-project should release combinations of states on the "master"
>> branches of individual libraries.
>>> Robert Ramey
>>> PS - On personal machine, I have the release branch loaded
>>> and just switched to the trunk for the serialization library.
>>> This has made my life much easier since I've avoid the above
>>> PPS - Hmmm - I wonder if this will be possible/easy under
>>> the Git system.
>> The model described in the PS is possible/easy. The idea quoted at the
>> top is still not clear enough to say anything about.
> I think perhaps Robert may be using current subversion branch naming,
That possibility occurred to me but I prefer not to speculate.
> so in the GitFlow model what he is talking about testing against is
But which one? The "master" for boost or the "master" for each
> Until enough time passes to be reasonably sure everyone has switched
> to the GitFlow branch naming, every time someone refers to "release
> branch" without being more specific, we really have to ask them if
> they are talking about the old svn branches/release (i.e. they should
> have called it "master" if talking about modular Boost) or the GitFlow
> temporary (and often private) release staging branches that do not
> represent the latest actual release?
That's what I was essentially doing in my numbered list above.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk