From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-25 10:27:40
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> What the wiki doesn't mention is that we have both 'sandbox-branches',
>> and 'sandbox-tags'. Seems reasonable to keep that arrangement.
> I'm not sure I agree. If sandbox projects are managed individually, why
> not letting them care for their own branching arrangements (i.e. local file layout) ?
Because then when one checks out the boost/sandbox one will also get a
bunch of "copies" of all the projects. AFAIK the arrangement was
designed such that one can check out boost/sandbox or boost/stable or
boost/devel, and have a simple tree. I know this isn't the "recommended"
svn layout but personally (even though I didn't come up with it) it
seems more _humane_ than the recommended.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk