Re: [boost] review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)

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 boost.org. 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
> (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki). 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? 
>> lists.boost.org 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 lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> 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 http://producingoss.com/)
> 
> 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, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org