Re: [boost] Moving away from SourceForge

Subject: Re: [boost] Moving away from SourceForge
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-22 12:27:05

On 01/22/17 19:35, Louis Dionne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this has been discussed in the past, but I would like to revive the
> discussion about moving away from SourceForge as Boosts' release hosting
> provider. SourceForge has at least the following issues:
>
> - There is no way of controlling the format when downloading an archive of
>   the latest release. This can break people that rely on this in their CI
>   scripts. For example, Metabench's[1] CI was broken for a while when the
>   archive changed from .bz2 to .zip.
>
> - SourceForge has been in the middle of some controversies[2].
>
> - Their reliability has not been so great. In the past year, I've had quite
>   a few of my Travis jobs fail due to SourceForge being unresponsive.
>
>
> There are most likely other concerns, but these are the ones that really
> bite
> me as a user right now. Am I the only one? If there's some push to do the
> move,
> the two main candidates I see would be
>
> - GitHub's native hosting

I don't have a strong opinion re SourceForge, but I have negative 
experience with GitHub. I had problems with checking out Boost git repos 
multiplie times in the past, their web interface is regularly down (last 
time was a few days ago, actually). Thus I have little trust in GitHub 
reliability.

Also, does GitHub allow publishing source releases in the form other 
than .tar.gz? I imagine, it's not very convenient for Windows users and 
is not efficient for everyone else.