From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-30 09:44:10
David Abrahams wrote:
>From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
>> 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
>to have individuals integrate and synchronize with each other. If you
>restrict write access too much, there isn't much benefit.
Agreed, for the long term. Short term, we need to build a bit of
experience and build confidence before we set policies. Maybe the
transition will go so smoothly the long term is only a few days from now,
but we aren't there just yet.
>I favor more of a free-for all - you can always decide that the DB is
>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
>didn't have time to review and integrate them. I see the same sort of
>happening to us.
>Some other possibilities:
>1. new branches can be started and contributed to at will by anyone, but
>main (release) branch stays inviolate until it is merged by a maintainer.
>2. Give everyone who has contributed to a released boost library write
Yes, both those approaches sound interesting. I had been thinking of 2)
>That said, we need to have a back-door for people like Paul. I'd rather
>weren't "2nd-class citizens" in any sense, though. If the ftp-a-patch
>solution I've seen suggested works, that might cover it.
Yes. I have been involved in a couple of past projects which ran into
problems because there was no backdoor for those who couldn't or didn't
wish to access the repository directly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk