Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [signals2][review] signals2 review results

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [signals2][review] signals2 review results
From: Stjepan Rajko (stjepan.rajko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-20 23:29:08

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Frank Mori Hess <fmhess_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I'll post a RFC to the boost devel/users lists once I'm done addressing the
> issues raised during the review, to give people an opportunity to provide
> more input before it goes into a release.  One minor point: my
> understanding is code in the trunk doesn't go into releases until it is
> manually copied into the release branch.  So I think the important move
> wouldn't be the one from sandbox to trunk, but copying the library into
> the release branch.
>

I was unsure on this issue myself, so I went with the more
conservative decision.  This was partly because I was mirroring
previous reviews that had similar conditions (but those were before
the current release process), and partly because every once in a while
I see a discussion on the list that tries to pin down how stable or
unstable the trunk is supposed to be, and I don't recall seeing a hard
decision on the issue.  My concern was that boost users or developers
that use the trunk would have to deal with potentially frequent
post-review changes should they choose to use signals2.

I think working in a branch (http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/)
would definitely be fine (this would be better than the sandbox
because you could integrate with the boost structure - from what I
remember branching all of boost into the sandbox is frowned upon).
Could you do that until you feel like you have a relatively stable and
reliable implementation? (depending on what changes you plan to make
to the implementation, that might not take much).

Another option might be to just create a signals2 directory in the
trunk boost and libs directories, and those that want to get signals2
with the trunk can do an svn switch to a version in the branch (then
they can latch on to a particular version, or the head, and they are
very conscious of the fact that they are working with a library that
might be going through frequent changes).

Sorry if I'm making too much of this, perhaps one of the moderators
can chime in and say that using the trunk is a non-issue and I'll
happily shut up :-)

Best,

Stjepan