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:

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


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