Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc

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 
work-flow:

* 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.

Peter