Subject: Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-18 20:55:40
On 7/17/2011 7:50 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 14:36, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
Ah, I see. Yes, if the copying of the could be scripted then it would be
a single registration task. I.e. equivalent to the current sandbox.
Which might be fairly easy if it's straightforward to get a snapshot of
the code from the source RCS.
This is starting to sound more like a "standard" library release
aggregation process which could be extended to multiple levels all the
up to releases -- Assuming we have all modular libraries.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk