I wanted to remind everybody that we have a procedure how changes to RC_1_34_0 branch are supposed to be made, documented at: http://boost.org/more/release_procedures.htm#Developers I see quite a number of changes, made by difference people (including myself), that seem to be applicable both to HEAD and RC_1_34_0 but are present on only one of the branches. Let us all try harder to follow the merge procedure! Also, while we're at it, I think it's better to introduce a policy that log messages for merges to RC_1_34_0 should be of the form: Merge: <HEAD commit messages> because otherwise it's hard to find correspondence between HEAD and RC checkins. Anybody has comments on this idea? Thanks, Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I wanted to remind everybody that we have a procedure how changes to RC_1_34_0 branch are supposed to be made, documented at:
http://boost.org/more/release_procedures.htm#Developers
I see quite a number of changes, made by difference people (including myself), that seem to be applicable both to HEAD and RC_1_34_0 but are present on only one of the branches.
Could it be, that the procedure is slightly too complicated? I, e.g. am having two parallel trees present. E.g. HEAD and RC_1_34_0. I do not see easily if merging from my local HEAD to my local RC_* and then committing from local RC_* will be equivalent to the above procedure. Will it? Also I suspect that quite some users are using tortoise-cvs. A recipe for this UI possibly would encourage more developers to follow the procedure. Roland
Roland Schwarz wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I wanted to remind everybody that we have a procedure how changes to RC_1_34_0 branch are supposed to be made, documented at:
http://boost.org/more/release_procedures.htm#Developers
I see quite a number of changes, made by difference people (including myself), that seem to be applicable both to HEAD and RC_1_34_0 but are present on only one of the branches.
Could it be, that the procedure is slightly too complicated?
It might be that CVS is way too broken.
I, e.g. am having two parallel trees present. E.g. HEAD and RC_1_34_0. I do not see easily if merging from my local HEAD to my local RC_* and then committing from local RC_* will be equivalent to the above procedure. Will it?
If you merge the changes manually, examine the difference between HEAD and RC_1_34_0, and move the merged_to_RC_1_34_0 tag, it will be the same. However, I'd suggest this: 1. Go to RC_1_34_0 tree. 2. Run cvs up -j merged_to_RC_1_34_0 -j HEAD file The 'file' should be unmodified in RC_1_34_0 tree. 3. Run "cvs diff file" and make sure the differences are what expected. 4. Run "cvs ci" 5. Go back to HEAD and retag per current instructions. Really, all of those operations are required anyway, except for (2) and (2) is more reliable than manual merging.
Also I suspect that quite some users are using tortoise-cvs. A recipe for this UI possibly would encourage more developers to follow the procedure.
That might be a good point. Anybody with Tortoise-cvs experience can provide some text for docs? Thanks, Volodya
participants (2)
-
Roland Schwarz -
Vladimir Prus