on Mon Jun 04 2012, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I would expect to have a branch for each release
I think the issue is discover-ability. In a modularized Boost, each library will have its own repo and release cycle. So the question becomes what is the current release for this library?
If the current release is simply the head of the "release" branch, that's easy to answer both for humans and for automated processes.
Good point.
and hotfix instead of all the releases sharing the same branch. At work I'm used to have a main branch, one feature branche by feature and one release branch by release. This has the advantage of not needing the merge from develop to master and discovering that you can not merge because you depend on other parts that are not merged yet.
Hotfix and feature branches are local project workflow decisions, so their existence and names are up to that library's maintainer.
True, but I'd like to discourage that if possible. Discoverability is still desirable, even at that level, and is helped by uniformity. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com