"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ud5eiorfd.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
A draft proposal is available at http://mysite.verizon.net/beman/release_overview.html.
I've put a fair amount of thought into this proposal, and have run some Subversion simulations to make sure it works smoothly.
What do others think?
Mostly great. I'm concerned about these time slots. They don't seem necessary in principle since subversion has atomic commits, and they seem like they could introduce spurious lock contention on the repository.
Point taken, although I'm not sure how serious a problem it is.
If it is a real problem, maybe something link this:
Step one: developers during the week merge into a "next" branch of stable. Step two: once a cycle (tentatively weekly), a single merge of the "next" branch into stable head is done.
I still don't understand why we'd bother with either approach. What problem are you solving. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com