on Sat Aug 25 2007, "Darren Garvey" <lists.drrngrvy-AT-googlemail.com> wrote:
On 25/08/07, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
*snip*
/svn/boost/branches/libs/ system/ boost/ system/... libs/ system/ build/... doc/... src/... test/...
In other words, organized the sub-tree under /svn/boost/branches/libs/system exactly the same way the trunk is organized. That might be easier for others to understand. I also wonder if it has any advantages as far as various SVN operations go.
Opinions?
Since SVN copy operations are so cheap, wouldn't it be simpler to have each branch as a complete copy of some stable tree, with some isolated work stuck in? That way, a naive user (such as myself) can just check out a branch - eg. the system branch - and have a complete boost tree that they can test, use or develop with.
As it stands, the 'branch' appears to be a subset of boost, whereas I would have expected a complete 'fork' (albeit a temporary one).
Yeah, a complete fork is what I would expect, and probably want. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com