Boost logo

Boost :

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 15:25:49


On Thu, 2007-14-06 at 14:01 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Nicola Musatti wrote:
> > Hallo,
> > was a final decision taken on what should the repository structure be?
>
> No, AFAIK.

I was thinking this morning about how it could be structured given the
goal of independent library version releases + some stable set of code
that people can use to have all of the up-to-date released libraries.

So the up-to-date "trunk" which people can always svn co to get the
latest stable:

 /trunk
  /libs
   /fusion =>
     svn:externals svn://boostsvn/svn/fusion/trunk/libs/fusion
   /thread =>
     svn:externals svn://boostsvn/svn/threads/trunk/libs/thread
... etc ...
  /boost
   fusion/
    include/
     boost =>
      svn:externals svn://boostsvn/svn/fusion/trunk/boost

I think the structure of the individual repositories could be discerned
from that. So if a user wants "latest up-to-date stuff" they do:

svn co /path/to/trunk

If a fusion developer wants to work on his library:

svn co /path/to/trunk
cd fusion
svn switch svn://boostsvn/svn/fusion/trunk/libs/fusion
cd ..
cd boost/fusion
svn switch svn://boostsvn/svn/fusion/trunk/boost

You would need minor changes to the Jamfiles to make this work.

To make a new release of his library, the developer would merge his
branch into trunk and notify the appropriate authorities.

I'm sure there are many things I have missed like regressions and stuff
but I think the basic idea should work. But it can still be totally
wrong and in fantasy land.

Sohail


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk