On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Heller <thom.heller@googlemail.com>wrote:
Well, i still like to believe that one of boost's strengths is the large platform support. This is also the reason why I believe that a branching model is not a good solution for boost. Here is why:
When i develop a new feature i do that on trunk, whenever i feel confident that the feature works as i expected it, i commit it. After a couple of days the test cycled, and i see on which platforms these tests fail and i try to fix it. This is where I have problems with this whole branching model, when will my features i pushed to a branch be tested? I actually believe that despite the possible ease of development and contribution such a model actually leads to a unstable main branch or trunk. I think testing should be a concern, and i would rather like to see a discussion about test improvements than VCS. However, if a different VCS means easier testing (for the test runners), I am all for it. I am curios to hear more about that!
Well that reminds me of a post expressing a similar thought about branching models vs. testing < http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/09/branching-strategy-is-not-a-remedy-for-instability/>. What I take from it in the context of Boost.. Is that Boost is stable because we have a rather simple and testing-centric non-branching model. Rene. -- -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo