----- Original Message ----- From: "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:30 AM 12/4/2002, David Abrahams wrote: > >Once a library is accepted, it is up to the library author if, and on > >what schedule, review remarks are addressed. My advice is to check > >Spirit into the Boost CVS tree as soon as it makes sense for the > >Spirit development schedule. > > Yes, after a library is accepted it is usual to give the developers write > access to the Boost CVS and they can start committing stuff. > > For a new library, it may be useful to have some other Booster look at the > directory and file names to make sure they in the boost hierarchy. It is a > pain-in-the-wherever to commit a new library and then have to rename a > bunch of files an directories right away. > > If the code being checked in is unstable then it might be a good idea to > check it in on a development branch, and only merge into the main trunk > when the code is stable. Otherwise you might have to respond to queries > about issues you already know about. > > It helps release quality if code is ready and in the main trunk well before > a release, too. I've been thinking a lot recently about the CVS issue. HIstorically, the Spirit project hosted by source forge has been very liberal when it comes to collaboration and sharing. Hey, Spirit is **sooo** extensible that extending it is fun and is highly encouraged. Currently, there are 17 active and semi-active contributors. The arrangement is basically based on trust while I control and sort-of police Spirit's core. This arrangement might not be acceptable to boost once Spirit is checked in its CVS. What might be a nice strategy is to continue with the current Spirit-CVS as a sandbox where ideas and prototypes are developed while more stable snapshots are sent of to Boost's CVS. Thoughts? Cheers, Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
