I am confused by the use of the Boost sandbox and by the use of the Boost vault for uploading code in which others might be interested. What is the difference between these two ? Would it not be better to have a single area in which new code is uploaded ?
Hi Edward, I'm not an expert here but the following might be helpful: The Boost sandbox is a subversion repository (see http://subversion.tigris.org/), and is suitable for development and version tracking of code. The vault, on the other hand, is a file repository, and is suitable for posting of packaged versions of the code (major milestones, finished products ready for review, etc) so that they can more easily be used and reviewed. Since the two serve very different purposes (and both are really useful for that reason, IMO), I doubt they could be replaced by a single area. HTH, Stjepan On 5/30/07, Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
I am confused by the use of the Boost sandbox and by the use of the Boost vault for uploading code in which others might be interested. What is the difference between these two ? Would it not be better to have a single area in which new code is uploaded ?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
I'm not an expert here but the following might be helpful:
The Boost sandbox is a subversion repository (see http://subversion.tigris.org/), and is suitable for development and version tracking of code. The vault, on the other hand, is a file repository, and is suitable for posting of packaged versions of the code (major milestones, finished products ready for review, etc) so that they can more easily be used and reviewed.
Since the two serve very different purposes (and both are really useful for that reason, IMO), I doubt they could be replaced by a single area.
Also, the vault is immediately open to all, whereas the sandbox requires permission from the moderators. -- -- 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
Rene Rivera wrote:
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
I'm not an expert here but the following might be helpful:
The Boost sandbox is a subversion repository (see http://subversion.tigris.org/), and is suitable for development and version tracking of code. The vault, on the other hand, is a file repository, and is suitable for posting of packaged versions of the code (major milestones, finished products ready for review, etc) so that they can more easily be used and reviewed.
Since the two serve very different purposes (and both are really useful for that reason, IMO), I doubt they could be replaced by a single area.
Also, the vault is immediately open to all, whereas the sandbox requires permission from the moderators.
To me, since the idea is to put code into Subversion, which Boost developers have now recognized as much superior to CVS, there should be a single repository, or areas in a repository, whether called the sandbox or vault, where new possible libraries for Boost may reside. This would eliminate the confusion over two different areas of possible future Boost code. As far as submissions to that area is concerned, one could either give a permission, ala the sandbox today, or allow anyone write access. One could also have different policies in this regard for each different area of a Subversion repository. On the read side, anyone running a Subversion client would be able to access the code. Subversion clients make it child's play to download what one wants from a particular repository. As far as there being any difference between version tracking and packaging, Subversion can handle packaged code just like it can handle version tracked code. There is nothing to keep someone from getting a full zipped package from subversion if necessary. My beef is that there are two totally different URLs and ways of access. I think it would be better if there were a single one for future Boost code, in whatever form it takes, and this could be accessed from a Subversion client. Subversion is flexible enough to have packaged code in an entirely different branch of a Subversion repository than source/build code. But I would still like to see it all within the same repository. Once again, it would be much simpler if all future Boost code were in a single place for easy access by interested people. It only confuses me to hear that something is put into the vault, at some URL address I have to remember and root around in, and other interesting libraries are put into Subversion, at a particular repository. Sometimes KISS is wonderful when it can be done easily, and Subversion is certainly up to that task.
Edward Diener wrote:
Once again, it would be much simpler if all future Boost code were in a single place for easy access by interested people. It only confuses me to hear that something is put into the vault, at some URL address I have to remember and root around in, and other interesting libraries are put into Subversion, at a particular repository. Sometimes KISS is wonderful when it can be done easily, and Subversion is certainly up to that task.
OK, I think you are confusing what is a UI issue with an access issue. Using SVN is *not* the easiest thing in the world. The vault is designed, and is effective, because it present essentially a *zero* effort level of entry for prospective Boost developers. So IMO SVN is not the KISS solution. That leaves your complaint about having to go find the vault, and having "strange" looking URLs. Currently that is a side effect of both the software we use for the vault, and of the historical wrangling I had to do with the SourceForge services. As I've said in the past, I would love to find an alternative library that implements the vault functionality (all of it, as we used to have it before I had to disable some of it for security reasons). Additionally, to resolve the discrepancy as to the location of the vault, it can be moved either under the svn.boost.org umbrella. Or it could be moved under the beta.boost.org umbrella, which would put it at www.boost.org eventually. Both of those would be on the same server. -- -- 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
While we're talking about Boost SVN : it looks like the server is down or flaky - http://svn.boost.org gives me "500 Internal Server Error", which is almost never good.... Matthias
on Wed May 30 2007, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
As I've said in the past, I would love to find an alternative library that implements the vault functionality (all of it, as we used to have it before I had to disable some of it for security reasons).
Is there a list of these functions somewhere? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed May 30 2007, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
As I've said in the past, I would love to find an alternative library that implements the vault functionality (all of it, as we used to have it before I had to disable some of it for security reasons).
Is there a list of these functions somewhere?
No :-) But then again I would like *any* replacement to the current library. IIRC it was things like previews of files/archives which was disabled, email notifications, and probably a few other things. -- -- 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
participants (5)
-
David Abrahams -
Edward Diener -
Matthias Schabel -
Rene Rivera -
Stjepan Rajko