Re: [boost] [trac] new versions of boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [trac] new versions of boost
From: James E. King, III (jking_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-11 21:53:29

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Edward Diener via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 1/11/2018 8:29 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
>
>> On 11.01.2018 03:07, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
>>
>>> Le 02.01.18 à 11:08, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible to add the next versions of boost to
>>>> trac/milestones ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Raffi
>>>>
>>> Kind reminder.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> I really do believe we should deprecate trac and encourage everyone to
>> use github. I understand that to some, having a single place to file
>> "boost issues" seems desirable, and for that reason they'd prefer to use
>> trac. But the reality is different: An increasing number of boost
>> projects migrate to github, and thus won't even listen to trac issues
>> any longer. So that boat has sailed already. It's time to acknowledge
>> that, and not make things worse by maintaining multiple trackers.
>>
>
> I agree with Stefan. But this needs some proactive actions first and
> probably some agreement with the Boost Steering Committee:
>
> 1) Turn on Issues for every boostorg library in Github
> 2) Make an announcement on the website that all new bug reports should be
> either Issues or PRs on Github.
> 3) Encourage library authors to either clean up what is already on Trac or
> transfer Trac bug reports to Github issues or PRs for eventual handling.
> 4) Turn off Trac, if possible, for adding any more bug reports.
> 5) Announce a cutoff time when Trac will no longer be available for Boost.
>
> Having two separate places to deal with bug reports for Boost libraries is
> not a good situation and having Github Issues and PRs is a much more
> flexible system for dealing with library changes than Trac.
>
>
>>
This issue was discussed last year.  Search the email history for it.
Let's not lose focus on the request.
Trac still shows 1.66.0 as pending, and doesn't have an entry for 1.67.0.

- Jim