Subject: Re: [boost] Moving Boost.Geometry to trunk (was: Sandbox cleanup)
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-30 09:18:37
> Barend, not really related but a question anyways: why don't you move your
> overall activities to the trunk?
Yes, that is a good idea. Actually I just did not know that that was
allowed already, and the sandbox is working well. But I now see that the
sandbox HTML page indeed mentions its purpose, unreviewed code.
> I know you're not satisfied with certain
> details of your library. However, doing the development on trunk (and
> Boost.Geometry is an accepted library) gives you more exposure to potential
> users and full integration with the regression tests.
Yes, right. For quickbook, trunk is also more convenient than sandbox
(referring to css etc).
> Additionally, having
> the library on trunk doesn't mean you need to merge it to the release branch
> for any release in the near future...
I see, I understand the difference now. Any release in the near future
is certainly planned, by the way...
So my previous post suggested distinction between accepted and proposed
libraries, and this is actually the distinction. Perfect.
I will discuss moving to trunk. This is probably the right moment
because I'm moving to the final namespaces now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk