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

Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-28 12:54:06

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
Behalf Of
> Daniel James
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:40 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:
[rfc] rcpp)
> 
> On 28 February 2010 16:47, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > But nobody has yet responded to the vital question of whether there are
> > resources to support a parallel tree to trunk,
> > in addition to sandbox, for what we are calling 'candidate' libraries.
> 
> I think I did a while ago. The sandbox used to be organised as a
> parallel tree to the main tree (in CVS). It ended up a complete mess.
> If someone's willing to actively maintain it, then that might be
> averted, but experience suggests that they won't.
> 
> But using separate repositories is a much better organisation anyway,
> it means that your history doesn't get all messed up as it does in
> trunk.

Ok - but are there resources to provide those repositories?  (disk space may be
cheap, but the backup and up/ download traffic costs?)

Or is each developer supposed to provide his own???

And what about testing?  Is each developing group responsible for testing its
own stuff, against latest release (and/or trunk?),
or some 'test farm' as for trunk?

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]