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: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 18:25:52

On 11 November 2014 00:01, Barend Gehrels <barend_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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).

Right, I now remember we had some discussion on that long ago.
Thanks for the reminder.

>>>> 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.

Right, so we are good and there is no issue them causing the upstream
builds go RED.

> 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".

+1

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net