From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-30 06:53:02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
> Paul Moore wrote:
> Right now, it is as if I am the only one with read and write access to the
> current boost.org snapshot. The initial CVS usage will be as if everyone
> gets read access, but only a few (four to six?) maintainers get write
> access. Most contributors will continue to email stuff to a maintainer to
> get it incorporated in the code base. The eGroups files will continue for
> general postings by any member.
> In other words, the plan is to ease forward, learning and making
> adjustments as we go.
One of the main reasons for my proposal was that it was becoming laborious
to have individuals integrate and synchronize with each other. If you
restrict write access too much, there isn't much benefit.
I favor more of a free-for all - you can always decide that the DB is junk
and wipe everything back to the last official snapshot. This model was
recently adopted for the development of Python's IDLE editor: too many
potential improvements were getting lost because the "official maintainers"
didn't have time to review and integrate them. I see the same sort of things
happening to us.
Some other possibilities:
1. new branches can be started and contributed to at will by anyone, but the
main (release) branch stays inviolate until it is merged by a maintainer.
2. Give everyone who has contributed to a released boost library write
That said, we need to have a back-door for people like Paul. I'd rather they
weren't "2nd-class citizens" in any sense, though. If the ftp-a-patch
solution I've seen suggested works, that might cover it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk