Subject: Re: [boost] A proposal for superproject structure and testing
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-10 06:06:33
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:42 PM, "Peter Dimov" <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Cox, Michael wrote:
>> Changes in the develop branch correspond to changes that are intended for the *next* release...
> The develop submodule branch will eventually become the next *submodule* release. The master submodule branch is the current submodule release and will eventually be part of the next Boost release.
>> I'm assuming the criteria to merge a feature branch to the develop branch is that it builds and the unit-tests all pass with the current HEADs of the develop branches of all the other submodules.
> That's very unlikely.
I agree, and not just for Peter's reasons which I snipped. I think submodule testing should be against master of all (or most in special, coordinated evolution cases) other submodules. (This aligns with Robert Ramey's development and testing ideas.)
It isn't sensible to test against unreleased commits to other submodules since the bleeding edge can have lots of churn.
The idealized process of creating a Boost release then means snagging the latest release commit from each submodule.
I'm sure I've missed something, but that approach seems right.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk