Sandbox structure in subversion (was Re: [move] Library uploaded to sandbox)
2009/2/17 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga@gmail.com>:
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/libs/move_semantics/index.html
[snip]
For those that don't like svn sandbox (I'm one of them) I've also put the code and the documentation here:
Most people nowadays are putting their libraries into subdirectories of sandbox, instead of mixing it up with the stuff that's already there. It's much easier to check out and browse online. For example, there's chrono at: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox/chrono It is messy having this in the middle of the old sandbox layout. We could separate out the two although doing this without disrupting development would be tricky. Maybe we could create a new space in subversion and let people migrate to it if they wish. We could use a more traditional subversion layout, perhaps something like: /svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
2009/2/17 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga@gmail.com>:
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/libs/move_semantics/index.html [snip] For those that don't like svn sandbox (I'm one of them) I've also put the code and the documentation here:
Most people nowadays are putting their libraries into subdirectories of sandbox, instead of mixing it up with the stuff that's already there. It's much easier to check out and browse online. For example, there's chrono at:
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox/chrono
Ok. I'll do that with the next version. Thanks Daniel, Ion
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
Most people nowadays are putting their libraries into subdirectories of sandbox, instead of mixing it up with the stuff that's already there. It's much easier to check out and browse online. For example, there's chrono at:
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox/chrono
It is messy having this in the middle of the old sandbox layout. We could separate out the two although doing this without disrupting development would be tricky. Maybe we could create a new space in subversion and let people migrate to it if they wish. We could use a more traditional subversion layout, perhaps something like:
/svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches
Fine with me. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
2009/2/18 David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com>:
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
/svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches
Fine with me.
It looks like everyone's happy with the current setup, so I won't do it. I'd just end up creating another meaningless directory, it's probably just confuse people. Daniel
on Sat Feb 21 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
2009/2/18 David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com>:
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
/svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches
Fine with me.
It looks like everyone's happy with the current setup, so I won't do it. I'd just end up creating another meaningless directory, it's probably just confuse people.
That's disappointing. I've been wanting to make a change like that for a long time. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
David Abrahams wrote:
on Sat Feb 21 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
/svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches Fine with me. It looks like everyone's happy with the current setup, so I won't do it. I'd just end up creating another meaningless directory, it's
2009/2/18 David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com>: probably just confuse people.
That's disappointing. I've been wanting to make a change like that for a long time.
Why do you want the change? After all the above is no different than: /svn/boost/sandbox/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox/move_semantics /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/move_semantics Which is what we have now. -- -- 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
On Feb 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
That's disappointing. I've been wanting to make a change like that for a long time.
Why do you want the change? After all the above is no different than:
/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox/move_semantics /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/move_semantics
Which is what we have now.
We do? IIUC there are still sandbox/boost and sandbox/libs, which are the problem I wanted to address. -- David Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://boostpro.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Abrahams" <dave@boostpro.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Sandbox structure in subversion (was Re: [move] Libraryuploaded to sandbox)
On Feb 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
That's disappointing. I've been wanting to make a change like that for a long time.
Why do you want the change? After all the above is no different than:
/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox/move_semantics /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/move_semantics
Which is what we have now.
We do?
IIUC there are still sandbox/boost and sandbox/libs, which are the problem I wanted to address.
Hi, why not just move these libraries to sandbox/lib_name? Vicente
vicente.botet wrote:
On Feb 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
That's disappointing. I've been wanting to make a change like that for a long time.
Why do you want the change? After all the above is no different than:
/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox/move_semantics /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/move_semantics
Which is what we have now.
We do?
IIUC there are still sandbox/boost and sandbox/libs, which are the problem I wanted to address.
Hi,
why not just move these libraries to sandbox/lib_name? Vicente
I guess I'm one of the culprits not moving to the new structure. The problem is certainly not the current sandbox structure, in fact there is not really a problem at all. (Apart from the fact that the move has still not happened). Regards, Thomas
2009/2/24 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com>:
Why do you want the change?
The main reason reason is that we're currently using the sandbox directory in two different ways and it's a mess. If you want to check out the boost, libs, etc. stuff then it gets mixed up with the individual library directories, the history gets is totally confused. Sometime the libraries in their own directory end up using the shared boost build files and sometimes they don't. It's hard to get an idea of what's available when looking in the repository.
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Daniel James <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
/svn/boost/projects/chrono/trunk /svn/boost/projects/chrono/branches /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/trunk /svn/boost/projects/move_semantics/branches
2009/2/24 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com>:
After all the above is no different than:
/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/chrono /svn/boost/sandbox/move_semantics /svn/boost/sandbox-branches/move_semantics
No, it's different. Using the standard layout is more understandable - both to humans and software. For example, both bzr and git's subversion integration work better if the directories are in the standard layout. If you look in the sandbox-branches and sandbox-tags, it's obvious that no one is sure how to use them. Many of the names give little clues to what they contain. Libraries follow inconsistent conventions which make it more difficult to remember urls, or find the branch that you're looking for. Since branches and tags are separated from the trunk it's easy to miss that they exist. Also, the layout you've described doesn't allow for multiple branches and tags - do you use a second level, or do you use multiple names at the same level? Again, people end up adopting different conventions. But having said all of that, the downside to change is the disruption it would cause - and that could easily outweigh the advantages. Especially if there's little support for the change. Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
2009/2/24 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com>:
Why do you want the change?
The main reason reason is that we're currently using the sandbox directory in two different ways and it's a mess. If you want to check out the boost, libs, etc. stuff then it gets mixed up with the individual library directories, the history gets is totally confused. Sometime the libraries in their own directory end up using the shared boost build files and sometimes they don't. It's hard to get an idea of what's available when looking in the repository.
True, and it's why we came up with the structure and told people to use the new sandbox/somelib structure. But alas, people don't always listen, and/or are lazy about this.
But having said all of that, the downside to change is the disruption it would cause - and that could easily outweigh the advantages. Especially if there's little support for the change.
The other downside, is that the "standard" layout makes it horribly inconvenient to keep track of all the sandbox projects. I.e. I can't do a single check out to get all of them without waisting gobs of disk space and network time... Yes there are some number of us that have the whole sandbox around. But I'll stop repeating myself... There's various long discussions long ago regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each layout. Along with justifications as to why they are equivalent. -- -- 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
participants (6)
-
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
Ion Gaztañaga -
Rene Rivera -
Thomas Klimpel -
vicente.botet