Geometry Boost List: Re: [geometry] Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

Subject: Re: [geometry] Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 18:01:32

Hi,

Mateusz Loskot wrote On 10-11-2014 22:01:
> On 10 November 2014 21:56, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> Regarding extensions that are broken, they either should be fixed
>>> if actively maintained and supported
>>> or moved to separate repository
>>> if not maintained, orphaned and unsupported.
>>
>> I agree. Actually I think that we should ASAP release them (or some of them)
>> and have no more extensions.
> +1

Some are "soon" to be released (geographic strategies, projections) and 
should stay there.

Same for some formats (WKB)

Some are quite often used by others (such as dissolve) and should stay 
there, and indeed we can think about releasing them too.

Some others are not actively worked on (such as sphere).

>>> That said, I'd rather consider, either dedicated
>>> repository github.com/boostorg/geometry-extensions
>>> or
>>> Boost.Geometry team organization github.com/boostorg-geometry
>>> where such repositories can be maintained:
>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-orphaned
>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-proposed
>>>
>> Then if there were no extensions new features would exist in forks of people
>> working on them. The code would be merged into the main repository only if
>> it was finished. It'd then be maintained properly.
> Yes, it would make sort of extensions incubator with simple yet clear
> development cycle supported by GH pull requests, etc., and safely
> outside the upstream repo.
>

They are in extensions because they are not released. They are not in 
the master, so they are not in the main repository.

With this location, we have automatic access to the regression matrix too.

Especially for the last reason, I don't think they should be moved. But 
I agree that they should be made "green" and kept "green".

Regards, Barend