Daniel James wrote:
On 10 February 2012 15:01, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp@gmail.com> wrote:
Note (1): my depiction of the current Boost workflow might be inaccurate. If you see a way to improve the image, please go ahead or let me know what needs to be changed.
You've actually over-estimated our process. We never do a complete merge from trunk to release, just either cherry-pick changes, or do a sub-tree merge. There are often long neglected changes in trunk - which is a major problem with the current system.
Good to hear that at least I didn't under-estimate it. :-) I guess the difference between a merge with manual exceptions and cherry picking is only gradual, but I strongly agree neither is ideal.
Note (3): while this image helps to explain my point in [1], it turns out from [2] that I didn't actually address Daniel James' point. I'll return to the testing issue in a new reply to [2].
Having thought about it a bit, it might be the case that I exaggerated the issue. It certainly matters to me, but I'm not sure about other developers. A lot of the newer libraries don't put much effort into supporting the more obscure compilers.
Perhaps, but I think there is also another reason why the testing issue is not as severe as it may seem. I'll post about it tomorrow. -Julian