Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Update submodules in boost.git
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-07 17:49:38

"Cox, Michael" <mhcox_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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 only
>> 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?

Yes, library maintainers should be prepared for their master branch
state to be treated as an assertion of releasability, and should not
expect any state not on their master branch to become part of the
monolithic boost release.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at