Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 17/12/12 20:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp@gmail.com> wrote:
All valid points, but what's wrong with keeping trac for the old issues while requesting (or perhaps just encouraging, initially) that people submit new issues to the GitHub tracker?
I would very much prefer to have a single tracker to work with. What's the advantage of using GitHub compared to Trac?
Easy integration.
Then again neither Trac nor the Github issue systems are great bug reporting and tracking tools.
Hmmmm - I've always thought Trac was great. It has some minor annoyances - it slows down, but in general I think its just great from a user(me) point of view. But I'm not married to it. In general, I think the Boost Steering Commity - BS commitee for short - making good decisions here. a) One thing at a time - if that's possible i) moving to GIT ii) testing - separate issue. iii) issue tracking - separate issue iv) considering CMake - separate issue I've been using SVN and GIT and I though I don't have a huge preference, I see that GIT will be an improvement and will scale better. I would like to see the next thing - the testing - tweaked to make the default that a "trunk/expermental" library be tested against the the "next release" - that is the current release branch. I don't think this would be particularly disruptive change and I think it would have a number of benefits. I would like to personally thank the BS commitee for taking on this thankless task. It's a huge pain and they are going to get a lot of grief for it - but we really need to move on. Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost