on Sun Jul 17 2011, Edward Diener <eldiener-AT-tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 7/16/2011 11:22 PM, Rene Rivera wrote: snipped...
If we abandon the vault we also have to make the choices as to whether to abandon the current sandbox also. The reasons we've had two different systems until now is that the sandbox provides the revision control that some prospective projects want (when they don't want to use some other project hosting). This aspect doesn't seem to me as important anymore as there are varied project hosting services available. Which wasn't the case when the sandbox started. So to me it seems to make sense to also abandon the sandbox in favor of a combined solution.
Boost should provide some sort of version control hosting for potential Boost libraries. The sandbox has served that situation well and makes it easy for library developers to test their library against a Boost release/tree, such as the Boost trunk. Abandoning the sandbox does not seem reasonable to me unless there is a better version control hosting solution.
GitHub is better. Google Code is better. BitBucket is better. Indefero is better. Shall I go on? ;-) My point is, there's no reason for Boost to spend its resources or attention on this; there are plenty of professionally-run services giving it away for free. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com