on Sat May 05 2007, "Gregory Dai" <gregory.dai-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/07, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
on Fri May 04 2007, Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 18:30 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
That isn't at all what I had in mind. Rather, a release, say 1.35 would start with the previous release - 1.34 in this case. Developers, who have been working in devel (which is equivalent to the old HEAD), branch/tag their code at the point they think it is OK as "stable". Then when it comes time to do a release a script run by the release manager tries to merge code for the library from "stable" to the release candidate branch (working in library dependency order, with cycles broken when necessary).
I'm a bit confused... is "stable" a branch, or just a way to refer to certain points in the development of a library?
What's the difference (in the SVN world)?
<snip long explanation>
Hope this helps in terms of concept.
Thanks. Though I know how SVN works (which is sorta why I asked the question), I'm sure the elaboration will be useful to many here. I guess you're saying that if "stable" was a branch, people would be doing direct development there, and if not, people would periodically "svn cp" code from their development branch into stable. Seems like we want the latter; i.e. "stable" is not a branch. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com