Subject: Re: [boost] [GIT] What happens to the Trac?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-17 17:03:43
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 17/12/12 20:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Julian Gonggrijp
>> <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> All valid points, but what's wrong with keeping trac for the old
>>> issues while requesting (or perhaps just encouraging, initially)
>>> that people submit new issues to the GitHub tracker?
>> I would very much prefer to have a single tracker to work with.
>> What's the advantage of using GitHub compared to Trac?
> Easy integration.
> Then again neither Trac nor the Github issue systems are great bug
> reporting and tracking tools.
Hmmmm - I've always thought Trac was great. It has some minor
annoyances - it slows down, but in general I think its just great
from a user(me) point of view.
But I'm not married to it.
In general, I think the Boost Steering Commity - BS commitee for
short - making good decisions here.
a) One thing at a time - if that's possible
i) moving to GIT
ii) testing - separate issue.
iii) issue tracking - separate issue
iv) considering CMake - separate issue
I've been using SVN and GIT and I though I don't have
a huge preference, I see that GIT will be an improvement
and will scale better.
I would like to see the next thing - the testing - tweaked to make
the default that a "trunk/expermental" library be tested against
the the "next release" - that is the current release branch. I don't
think this would be particularly disruptive change and I think it
would have a number of benefits.
I would like to personally thank the BS commitee for taking
on this thankless task. It's a huge pain and they are going to
get a lot of grief for it - but we really need to move on.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk