Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1.61.0 Beta 1
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-05 23:34:06
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5 April 2016 at 02:36, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Is this beta going to go up to sourceforge? That is the normal
> > > process,
> > > > >> right?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Ping?
> > > >
> > > > We're trying another hosting service. I added links to the website
> > > > yesterday, sorry that was a bit slow.
> > > >
> > > > https://bintray.com/boostorg/release/boost/1.61.0.beta.1/view
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can we put the windows binary builds up there as well?
> > > I had already uploaded them to sourceforge since no one told me the
> > process
> > > had changed.
> > >
> > Sure.. Can you go here <https://bintray.com/boostorg> and hit the join
> > button near the top. So I can give you access to upload the binaries.
> Well that was a bust. They don't allow files > 250MB on the site. Several
> of the windows packages are bigger than that.
That is rather unfortunate. I wish they would published what their limits
are in the first place. But I guess this is a deal breaker for using them.
I vote that we go back to sourceforge for our primary download site, they
> don't have problems like this.
I think I concur on that, at least for the next release. I'll bring this up
in the release team to see how we move forward in the short term.
> They've also been doing a pretty good job
> at cleaning up their reputation over the last few weeks.
> If we want to support two sites one for the source and one for the
> binaries, I don't think that's the end of the world, but I don't see it as
> ideal. Either way, can we also upload the source releases there even if it
> isn't the primary place to go? There are lots of links all over the
> internet that are pointing people there for downloads of boost, it would be
> sad if people following those only saw the old versions.
I would rather that all our official packages, source and binaries, be in
one place for consistency and ease for end users.
Again.. If anyone has alternatives for software distribution that can fit
Boost's needs I would love to hear about it. Just because I like
alternatives, and because some aspects of SF's way of doing things make it
harder to automate the release process.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - 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