----- Original Message ----- From: "James Sharpe" <james.sharpe@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [boost] [1.36.0] Libraries with unmerged changes?
Beman,
I'm calling into question the decisions you've made with regards to where you start a new branch for a release from in the light of the fact that you are diffing against trunk. To me it seems like you are making a lot of work for yourself and maintainers by requiring that changes get merged from trunk to release, with release having been based upon the previous release. If you're only then going to diff against trunk for differences then why not just start from trunk in the first place and revert commits that are destined for the next release? Seems to me like you'd have a much easier job and people wouldn't need to worry so much about merging before the deadline; all they'd have to ensure is that there changes are in trunk before the release branch creation date and then it would simply be a case of reverting features that aren't destined for the release. I think this would be a smaller workload for creating releases, as then the remainder of the time can be spent patching the release to remove regressions.
What are people's thoughts on the matter?
Hello, I thought this was already the case. To me this is the natural way. Developements that do not pretend to be included in the next release should be done on a separate branch or on the sandbox. Once a release branch is created, the trunk should be free for new libraries, and new developements for the next release. In this way the delay of a release is 6 months, but a new release is delivered every three months. This avoid to have libraries that use something from the truck that will not be merged on the release branch. Of course the modification done on the release branch must be merged on the trunk. What is the interest to have two branches trunk and release if its contents must be synchronized? Best Vicente Juan Botet Escriba