Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-26 02:45:57

Walter Landry wrote:

> Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> > I'm basically in a holding pattern on the release until (1)
>> > SourceForge clears the CVS performance issues, and (2) the above
>> > regressions get fixed.
>> Aren't we all... I was hoping to make a release of Boost.Jam (3.1.9)
>> today to match the eventual Boost release. But given that updating
>> CVS takes 4 to 5 hours I don't think that will happen :-(
> Perhaps this isn't the best time to raise this, but wouldn't it be
> better if Boost eventually moved to a more distributed version control
> system?

I don't think that's going to help. Distributed version control system allow
you to commit to your local repository and then push the changes to the
master copy. That's probably nice for some cases -- the favourite example
of proponents is hacking in a train/plane. But for Boost, in order to test
the release, you *still* need to push all the changes to the master copy --
which still remains single point of failure.

I'm not sure if existing system will allow to collect the changes on
machines used for regression testings -- but even if so, that would be
really inconvenient. Imagine that if you fix a bug, you'd need to push it
to all machines used for regression testings. Or otherwise, all testers need
to pull changes from all known local repositories.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at