Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
What the wiki doesn't mention is that we have both 'sandbox-branches', and 'sandbox-tags'. Seems reasonable to keep that arrangement.
I'm not sure I agree. If sandbox projects are managed individually, why not letting them care for their own branching arrangements (i.e. local file layout) ?
Because then when one checks out the boost/sandbox one will also get a bunch of "copies" of all the projects. AFAIK the arrangement was designed such that one can check out boost/sandbox or boost/stable or boost/devel, and have a simple tree. I know this isn't the "recommended" svn layout but personally (even though I didn't come up with it) it seems more _humane_ than the recommended. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo