Beman Dawes wrote:
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Daryle Walker wrote:
On Aug 19, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
Gennaro Prota wrote: [...]
where does the release branch originate from?
It's always from the previous release.
Is this a good thing?
Not to me. I imagine that, in a time in which I wasn't following the list, there have been long discussions which led to the current state of affairs. So, it may be clear to everyone except me. What I know for sure is that this requires *a lot* of work every time you make a modification; and either a lot of memory on your part, or a file where you note the inter-release changes down, detailedly (I certainly don't trust merging a whole directory (or multiple ones) blindly: I want to see exactly what gets merged; and, to do this, I have to keep a list of what changes I made). With such an approach, I'd expect more problems due to naive merges than problems due to an unstable trunk version being used as a branch point.
Whoa!
Gulp! Isn't that to stop a horse? :-) (Someone warned me about having long hair... <http://gennaro-prota.50webs.com/>).
None of that has to be done manually. Subversion provides plenty of tools to manage differences between trunk and branches/release.
I'll see how it goes. Manually or not, it's a lot of bookkeeping, and requires time. Since I'm only maintaining dynamic_bitset, I'd expect a few number of interventions, thus I'm probably the wrong guy to complain. But it seems to me that being a Boost developer is going to be a full-time job, really. (With the previous repository policy, I could make modifications to a library when I had some spare time, look at the regression reports and forget it. Now, instead, I have also to wait for the release branch to be open and do all the merges; which could be e.g. two months later, in a moment I'm simply unavailable). -- Genny