On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 05:24:56 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
So my question would be:
- What would be the best way for me to solicit feedback on a proposal that tweaks the current process? Is editing this wiki page the way or should I create a new one?
Create a new one... I don't think we want to tweak "the process." I think we want to create an alternative process for people who are interested in following a more modern, decoupled development model. Eventually, if it works, the other one will die of underuse. The thing is that you have to make sure that your proposal doesn't clash with the way we do things now: for example, it can't create significant new work for the release managers.
Excellent points! For example, I'd very much like to move both the libraries I maintain and my release management work to Git. I've been using it for a while now on various projects, including one very small (three contributors) distributed project, and find Git preferable by a wide margin. But others will want to stick with SVN at least for awhile. Because Git can track a Subversion repository, it is probably possible to use both without undue trouble. While I'm leery of anything that would "create significant new work for the release managers" on an ongoing basis, I am willing to put in some extra work during a transition. Areas where I personally don't want any big changes yet are the Boost build and regression testing systems. Alternatives for either of these systems don't appear anywhere near ready for prime time WRT Boost. The formal review system needs a drastic rework to make it more parallel and remove bottlenecks, but I don't have anything beyond vague feelings about how to do that. --Beman