Subject: Re: [boost] Issues without Trac [was boost.org https certificate expired 4 month ago]
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-14 11:46:53
On 8/14/15 6:45 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 14/08/15 09:33 AM, Glen Fernandes wrote:
>> What else do we use Trac for now besides bug reporting? Is there a plan to
>> move to something else? (I couldn't find the thread that discussed a move to
>> Github issues).
> I think it might be best if such a decision didn't have to be taken for
> all of Boost at once. Why can't individual project maintainers decide
> for themselves (and their respective communities) what tools to use ?
> For example, I'm actively encouraging new Boost.Python issues to be
> filed on github, and I have documented that in the Boost.Python website
> I find that github makes it easy to set up project-specific websites,
> issue trackers, and wikis. (The only thing missing are mailing lists.)
This is a natural evolution of the boost modularization effort. In my
view their is not reason why all libraries need to use the same issues
database. This was one of the proposals which I made at my Boost 2.0
presentation at C++Now. The www.blincubator.com libraries page presents
as prototype of how this would work. The library page presents a common
facade which has pointer to the library's issues database and other
information. Something like this could present a common interface for
boost libraries while still permitting library authors to select the
most appropriate solution.
PS - slightly off topic - I believe that a more recent version of TRAC
can support keeping issues in both githup and the local trac database.
So an upgrade here would be very helpful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk