Re: [boost] Move project?

From: Matthew D. Langston (langston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-15 15:19:59

Nathan> The main point (other than obnoxious advertising) is that
Nathan> egroups is not particularly oriented to free software
Nathan> projects, where SourceForge emphatically is.

I would like to emphasize another advantage that moving the boost
project to SourceForge would allow, and that is the advantage of a CVS
repository for managing the boost sources.

Without knowing the demographic of the members of the boost list, I
don't know the level of knowledge and experience that members may have
with CVS.  For those who might not be as familiar with CVS as others,
I will list some of the many advantages (as I see them anyway) that
the boost project would reap if CVS were used for source revision
control.  I won't list all of the advantages here, but some of the
most prominent and obvious ones are:

1) The "well known" advantages that some form of revision control
   would afford the boost sources.  As developers, we all understand
   and appreciate the importance and usefulness of revision control in
   general, no matter how it is provided (i.e. whether it is provided
   by SourceSafe, CVS, etc.).

2) True, cross platform, distributed development.

   For example, the "CR-LF line-ending" issue/problem that frequently
   occurs with boost users would be handled automatically by CVS on a
   user by user basis (i.e. Windows users will get CR-LF, Unix users
   will get LF, etc.) regardless of how the boost sources are actually
   stored.

   Also, the library maintainers of the individual boost libraries
   can, at their option, enlist the help of others whom they wish to
   give "write access" to, while still giving the world "read access"
   to the sources.

3) Users have access to previous versions of the boost library.

   For example, I have kept my own private CVS repository of the boost
   sources since the Fall of 1999 to make it easier to integrate the
   boost libraries into my own projects.  With the boost sources in a
   CVS repository, I can easily perform the regression tests of my
   projects against newer versions of the boost libraries, while still
   being able to go back to an older version of the boost libraries if
   and when needed.

4) Efficient distribution of the boost sources.  This doesn't preclude
   the boost libraries from continuing to be distributed in .zip files
   - it just adds another option for users to obtain the sources.
   Users will also be able to "ask" for specific versions of the boost
   sources.

5) CVS encourages collaboration by making it trivial for users to
   contribute pathces.

As I mentioned, there are many other advantages to CVS, but the above
list may be sufficient for considering the advantages that a move of
the boost project to Sourceforge would afford.

Regards, Matt

--
Matthew D. Langston
SLD, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
langston_at_[hidden]