From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-04 15:07:31
At 12:52 PM 9/4/2002, Daryle Walker wrote:
>We should probably update our download policy. Looking at
>1. The download option from SourceForge just uses our web space as an
>archive depot. All other SourceForge projects I've seen use SF's
>downloading facilities (file release). We could switch to it to be
>more consistent with other SF projects, but we'll also get automatic
You're probably right. I'd need help on a few (probably minor) issues,
however. One of the problems in the past was that I almost always make
mistakes during the release runup. SourceForge didn't have ways to back out
actions, except to send pleading emails to their staff. Hopefully, they've
fixed those issues by now.
>Maybe the SF guys can help us with a script that automatically converts
>a tagged CVS state to a download archive.
Yes. Some guidance from someone with SourceForge experience would be
>2. Shouldn't the option of
>> Download individual files from links in the documentation on the web
>> site. Because of the number of files involved, and header
>> dependencies, this option usually isn't very useful.
>be retired? I think that the number of libraries providing small-level
>links has gone down and the header dependencies make it too complex.
>However, wasn't someone complaining a few months ago that he wanted
>just a subset of Boost, of the main library he was using and all the
>dependencies? Of course, the quoted solution still isn't useful, but
>maybe we should replace this section with a better solution rather than
Send me a diff:-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk