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

Subject: Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 14:55:40

on Sun Jul 17 2011, Edward Diener <eldiener-AT-tropicsoft.com> wrote:

> On 7/16/2011 11:22 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> snipped...
>>
>> If we abandon the vault we also have to make the choices as to whether
>> to abandon the current sandbox also. The reasons we've had two different
>> systems until now is that the sandbox provides the revision control that
>> some prospective projects want (when they don't want to use some other
>> project hosting). This aspect doesn't seem to me as important anymore as
>> there are varied project hosting services available. Which wasn't the
>> case when the sandbox started. So to me it seems to make sense to also
>> abandon the sandbox in favor of a combined solution.
>
> Boost should provide some sort of version control hosting for
> potential Boost libraries. The sandbox has served that situation well
> and makes it easy for library developers to test their library against
> a Boost release/tree, such as the Boost trunk. Abandoning the sandbox
> does not seem reasonable to me unless there is a better version
> control hosting solution.

GitHub is better.  Google Code is better.  BitBucket is better.
Indefero is better.  Shall I go on? ;-)

My point is, there's no reason for Boost to spend its resources or
attention on this; there are plenty of professionally-run services
giving it away for free.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com