Subject: Re: [boost] Merge procedure to master (was: Release sponsorship
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-23 15:05:27
Peter Dimov-2 wrote
> Robert's perspective here, FWIW, is that he develops and tests (quite
> extensively) in a configuration in which all libraries are on their master
> branch and Serialization is on develop.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is true and of course a big reason that
for me the merge from develop into master IS trivial. Sorry I forgot to
> On this configuration, once everything is green, merge is as easy as
> "merge --no-ff develop". You've already tested it, so there's no way
> anything can fail.
correct, that's why I do it this way.
> Of course this has its own drawback - the boost.org tests do not work in
> such a manner.
True again! But I don't think this is a reason why I shouldn't do it for my
own tests. My life is so much easier since I started doing things this way.
Much of the back and forth cited above just goes away.
Barend - Why don't you try my approach as an experiment. It's super easy
to set up. And if you don't agree that it makes your life a lot easier,
as easy to switch back. Try this an let us know how it works out for you.
I've talked to Rene about changing the boost.org tests to work in the way
I do it. He appreciated the idea - but was concerned about the difficulties
or implementing it on all the libraries one by one. I'm still convinced
testing each library in develop against all the others in master is the way
to go - but since Rene does the work, he get's to decide. That is the boost
- as it must be.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-1-58-schedule-available-tp4671426p4671592.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk