Subject: Re: [boost] [git help] Documenting common modular boost workflows
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 08:19:02
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Wed Oct 23 2013, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> > In my opinion it would be better to make hotfixes in the offending
> > modules (using standard gitflow hotfix branches) so that every Boost
> > release can include the latest versions of all modules.
> I disagree.
> > Of course, that requires more coordination between the release
> > managers and the library maintainers.
> Exactly. One of the main points of modularizing is to minimize the
> coordination burdens associated with our processes. Especially when you
> have an organization of volunteers, creating a situation where one
> person's non-responsiveness can stymie overall progress is a bad idea.
Dave's point is critical. As Boost continues to add libraries, there will
always be some non-responsive maintainers. We have to be able to cope with
Furthermore, library maintainers will occasionally become permanently
unavailable. That's why we are (at least initially) requiring a library's
public repo be hosted at GitHub, thus allowing us to appoint a new
maintainer to take over the library and eliminate the chance of the public
repo disappearing unexpectedly.