Re: [boost] [Git] Documentation for Git and Modular Boost conversion

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
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> 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
> "master".

But which one?  The "master" for boost or the "master" for each
individual dependency?

> 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