Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc

On 01/03/2014 06:23 AM, Daniel James wrote:

On 3 January 2014 08:25, Cox, Michael wrote:

...

latest=pu (proposed updates) I'd rather avoid such an unfortunate acronym. Or is it a deliberate comment on quality?

It can be, but I don't think he was proposing using those names, just stating that Boost is not diverging wildly from the traditional git work-flow: * master: validated stable; evolving release branch; permanent * next: accepted for stable; never rebased but might still require fixes before being released * pu: appears to have value, so let's try it in place, but if it doesn't work it gets yanked through a rebase Some of us still follow this much simpler model for repositories where it's appropriate. It served Linux for a long time, and is still the flow used for git itself. It is not appropriate for Boost, though it might be appropriate for submodules if next is renamed develop. Peter