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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk