Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Update submodules in boost.git
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-05 21:41:41
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Cox, Michael <mhcox_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > There was an agreement that the gitflow branching model shall be used.
> > >
> > That is too strong. There was agreement to recommend git flow, but the
> > requirement is that there be a "master" and a "develop" branch, and that
> > "master" be the library's latest release.
> I've been seeing a lot of e-mail flying around where people seem to be
> suggesting that development is done on the master instead of the develop
> branch. If we're requiring that library repositories have a develop and a
> master branch, is there a requirement that they be treated like the gitflow
> model does, i.e. development occurs on a local feature branch that is
> merged to the local develop branch and pushed to boostorg and releases are
> created on the master branch by merging develop to master and pushing to
> boostorg? If libraries are free to have there own policies, that's going
> to get very confusing.
If that happens, we will deal with it. But since it is notoriously "hard to
make predictions, especially about the future", let's not get all in an
uproar worrying about it. The work of the moment is to come up to speed
with git and modular boost, and start to reap the benefits.