Re: [boost] A proposal for superproject structure and testing

Subject: Re: [boost] A proposal for superproject structure and testing
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-12 15:21:47

On 9 December 2013 12:16, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> To expand on what I said in a previous message, I suggest the following
> structure for the superproject:
>
> - branch "latest": automatically tracks "develop" of submodules (scripted).
> - branch "develop": automatically tracks "master" of submodules (scripted).
> - branch "master": contains either the last release or the current release
> candidate.
>
> (This naming reflects a gitflow model. An alternative would be to use the
> more traditional unstable/stable for latest/develop.)

I'd rather use the alternative names. It's a bit confusing to have a
"develop" branch which doesn't have "develop" submodules.

> Test runners test all three, in sequence.

I like that this fits our current capabilities. But I worry about the
increased demand of running three branches, the tests were already
cycling pretty slowly with just two branches. I suppose we wouldn't
need to run master until the later stages of a release cycle, which
might help.

> Release preparation starts with a gitflow release branch from
> boostorg:develop. The release manager then runs local tests and, if
> necessary, applies fixes on the branch by downgrading submodules to an
> earlier version or asking the submodule maintainer to resolve a problem and
> then upgrading the submodule to the later version.

I think that task would need to be shared out amongst more than one
person. It shouldn't be too hard to coordinate with an online
spreadsheet or something similar.