John Maddock wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing whether people think a similar approach - for some of our projects anyway - would be beneficial for Boost too.
I would be interested in seeing support for some of our infrastructure. For whatever reasons, boost 1.34 has taken significantly longer to release than previous versions, and I see no reason to assume that 1.35 will go any more smoothly - lots of new libraries accepted while testing has focussed on release branch rather than head, the plan to start testing release as well as debug builds, and talk of moving to an SVN repository instead of CVS. I could imagine several small tools to give more consistent automated results (e.g. something to diagnose build environment rather than rely on user naming conventions), perhaps enhanced report pages so we can see warnings, or easily group by platform rather than vendor, or ... (although Aleksey is already doing some work on report pages) Are there more automated tools we want to run like the license/copyright checker? etc. And again, these or the sort of changes that could have an immediate impact, even during the SoC project itself - which could be very positive feedback for the student(s) involved. -- AlisdairM