Re: [boost] SourceForge

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 
laborious
 >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 
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
 >access.

Yes, both those approaches sound interesting.  I had been thinking of 2) 
independently.

 >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.

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.

--Beman