Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc
From: Peter A. Bigot (pab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-03 07:43:48

On 01/03/2014 06:23 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 3 January 2014 08:25, Cox, Michael <mhcox_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> latest=pu (proposed updates)
> I'd rather avoid such an unfortunate acronym. Or is it a deliberate
> comment on quality?

It can be, but I don't think he was proposing using those names, just
stating that Boost is not diverging wildly from the traditional git

* master: validated stable; evolving release branch; permanent
* next: accepted for stable; never rebased but might still require fixes
before being released
* pu: appears to have value, so let's try it in place, but if it doesn't
work it gets yanked through a rebase

Some of us still follow this much simpler model for repositories where
it's appropriate. It served Linux for a long time, and is still the
flow used for git itself. It is not appropriate for Boost, though it
might be appropriate for submodules if next is renamed develop.


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