From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-25 10:30:29
Rene Rivera wrote:
> 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.
Why would anybody check out the whole sandbox ? I'd expect people to
check out individual projects. And, if many people do want a single
sandbox (for example defined as the set of all sandbox trunks), one can
easily set up such a metaproject using svn:externals. (see, another good
use case for it ! ;-) )
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk