Subject: Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc
From: Peter A. Bigot (pab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-03 07:43:48
On 01/03/2014 06:23 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 3 January 2014 08:25, Cox, Michael <mhcox_at_[hidden]> 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