Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 15:17:28

vicente.botet wrote:
> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> A few of the issues:
>> 1) Where Boost Geometry website should go? SourceForge, OSGeo
>> Foundation (where it is now hosted, ), should we buy hosting as
>> Spirit or perhaps arrange everything at Where to put a
>> regular website?
> AFAIK, Boost don't provided a website by library, so you will need to
> host where you prefer.

Yes, it's clear.

>> Where to put a project specific Wiki or FAQ?
> There is a wiki associated to the Trac system
> ( You can add you own page and
> organize your wiki as you like. I suppose you will need to request to
> have the right to modify it.

I didn't know it is possible. I assume the Trac Wiki is dedicated
to general Boost maintenance, administration, commonalities.

>> 2) Where bug tracker goes?
>> Should we ask Boost Geometry users to submit reports to Boost Trac
>> exclusively, or should we maintain it on our own. We have actually
>> not decided what to do as neither of choices seem best options.
>> Adding hundreds of reports to the general population at Boost Trac
>> may make things difficult to maintain and searching for existing
>> bugs may become a complex task (i.e. to confirm if a problem has
>> been submitted before reporting new bug, etc.)
> I would prefer you request your users to submit reports to Boost
> Trac. This allow to check all the Boost tickets with only one tool.

Vincente, this is a very important recommendation actually.
I was looking at Boost GIL which in fact maintains two bug trackers
and I was a bit worried about usability of this approach.

Having all bugs reported to Boost Trac would be best option indeed.

> You can add a specific query to show the trickets specific to the
> component Geometry.

Yes, it's a nice feature of Trac

>> 3) Where mailing lists go? The boost and boost-users seem a natural
>> choice for Boost Geometry users, however plenty if not most of
>> discussions would be boring to general audience of Boost
>> developers/users. Geometry is one of wide variety of subjects Boost
>> addresses.
>> We likely need our own mailing list server, but where?
>> or somewhere else? How to avoid confusions in users
>> so they know where to post their questions about Boost Geometry.
>> ATM, we host it at
> There are some specific mailing lists, e.g. Threads, Spirit, Doc, ..
> . all that you need is to have a moderator I think. Have you request
> such a ML?

No, AFAIK we have not requested (yet). The ggl_at_[hidden] was
created in April 2009, so before approval submission to Boost.

>> The big question is how to avoid schizophrenic way of maintaining
>> project infrastructure and a little split of personality as I
>> observe in for instance with Boost/Adobe GIL. It is quite important
>> to keep things well integrated, otherwise it may prevent wide
>> adoption of a piece of software by users (it's well explained by
>> Karl Vogel in
> Maybe just doing what you are doing now. Requesting to this ML. IMO
> things are not so static as people could think.

Yes, it seems so. I'll propose to discuss this idea.

Best regards,

Mateusz Loskot,
Charter Member of OSGeo,

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