On 7/17/2011 7:50 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 14:36, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
Although that gives a similar result to the traditional vault, it has one significant drawback. It introduces a management layer for Boost for each proposed library/file. This is worse than both the old vault (self-registration) and sandbox (one-time moderator registration).
I don't understand what "management layer" you are talking about exactly? I was thinking like just a few scripts that regularly pull repositories changes would make the "management" automatic.
Ah, I see. Yes, if the copying of the could be scripted then it would be a single registration task. I.e. equivalent to the current sandbox. Which might be fairly easy if it's straightforward to get a snapshot of the code from the source RCS. This is starting to sound more like a "standard" library release aggregation process which could be extended to multiple levels all the up to releases -- Assuming we have all modular libraries. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail