From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-31 01:10:22
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed May 30 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Ping... Any comments on this? It would be nice if people voice some
>>> comments on this subject now. Instead of later when we would have to
>>> move a bunch of directories around.
>> Yes, this looks reasonable to me.
>>> stable (full boost tree here)
>>> devel (full boost tree here)
>>> my_branch (full boost tree here)
>>> cmake_a (full boost tree here)
>>> cmake_b (full boost tree here)
>>> boost_1_33_1 (full boost tree here)
>>> boost_1_34_0 (full boost tree here)
>>> xml (partial boost tree here)
>>> explore (partial boost tree here)
>>> xml_b0 (partial boost tree here)
>>> explore_b0 (partial boost tree here)
>>> xml_for_review (partial boost tree here)
>>> explore_for_review (partial boost tree here)
>> I'm still not convinced that the branching in the sandbox
>> should happen outside the projects (as opposed to let each
>> sandbox project organize its own substructure), but I don't
>> have a strong opinion there.
> I agree with Stefan. And that goes for the non-sandbox areas too.
> What is the point of pushing **library-specific** branches and tags up
> to the top level?
Like I said some time ago, when the longer svn thread started... It
accommodates the most common use case of people going to 1 directory and
getting the current version of *all* the sandbox projects. But to give
you and idea of the general impact of applying the "branch inside the
project dir" generally, say the thread lib needed a branch, like they
have now, to work on an experimental version. They might end up with:
build, docs, example, src, test
I know, I'm probably exaggerating for effect. So to take a simpler
example. I currently have a branch "Boost_Jam_994" which corresponds to
addressing issue #994. I would, under you suggestion, end up with:
Which might be fine if you are only interested in getting bjam. But in
getting the one Boost checkout you would end up waiting a long time to
transfer every variation of Boost code for every library, tool, and
What I'm essentially saying, and what KDE seems to be following, is that
even though there might be many sub-projects there is only one (or some
other small number) project. In our case I'm saying that's "Boost",
"Sandbox", and "Website". And under those we follow the mostly suggested
trunk, branches, tags arrangement.
-- -- 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