Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?

Subject: Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 08:50:29

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 14:36, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> It would be good to know what those additional tools/features are. And more
> apt, if they are things that authors would want or need.
>

I cannot help on this side as I'm mostly using GHC, but I think there are
github power-users in the boost community who would love to help.

>
>   2. GCH provide Subversion and Mercurial repositories while GitHub
>> provides
>> Git only repositories.
>>
>
> Correction; GCH provides Subversion, Mercurial, and Git <
> http://code.google.com/p/**support/wiki/**ChoosingAVersionControlSystem
>

> >**.
>
>
That's news to me! Itwasn't the case when I setup my projects few months
ago, thanks for pointing it.

> Although that gives a similar result to the traditional vault, it has one
> significant drawback. It introduces a management layer for Boost for each
> proposed library/file. This is worse than both the old vault
> (self-registration) and sandbox (one-time moderator registration).
>

I don't understand what "management layer" you are talking about exactly? I
was thinking like just a few scripts that regularly pull repositories
changes would make the "management" automatic.

Joël Lamotte