From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 01:32:31
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 09:30 AM 12/4/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
> >Once a library is accepted, it is up to the library author if, and on
> >what schedule, review remarks are addressed. My advice is to check
> >Spirit into the Boost CVS tree as soon as it makes sense for the
> >Spirit development schedule.
> Yes, after a library is accepted it is usual to give the developers write
> access to the Boost CVS and they can start committing stuff.
> For a new library, it may be useful to have some other Booster look at the
> directory and file names to make sure they in the boost hierarchy. It is a
> pain-in-the-wherever to commit a new library and then have to rename a
> bunch of files an directories right away.
> If the code being checked in is unstable then it might be a good idea to
> check it in on a development branch, and only merge into the main trunk
> when the code is stable. Otherwise you might have to respond to queries
> about issues you already know about.
> It helps release quality if code is ready and in the main trunk well before
> a release, too.
I've been thinking a lot recently about the CVS issue. HIstorically, the
Spirit project hosted by source forge has been very liberal when it comes
to collaboration and sharing. Hey, Spirit is **sooo** extensible that
extending it is fun and is highly encouraged. Currently, there are 17 active
and semi-active contributors.
The arrangement is basically based on trust while I control and sort-of
police Spirit's core. This arrangement might not be acceptable to boost
once Spirit is checked in its CVS. What might be a nice strategy is to
continue with the current Spirit-CVS as a sandbox where ideas and
prototypes are developed while more stable snapshots are sent of to
Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk