Re: repo for Boost::Ruby or how to get code into ...

Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:

> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> Tom Jordan wrote:
>>> Or should it be developed seperately and then submitted later?
>> 
>> Traditionally new libraries are developed separately and when they pass 
>> the review they are added into Boost. But langbinding has been and odd 
>> duck for a while. It's a new library, but it's also mostly a refactor of 
>> an existing library (Boost.Python). One path new libraries take is for 
>> the development to be done in the Boost-Sandbox SF project space and 
>> later moved when accepted. IIRC langbinding used to be in the sandbox 
>> project but Dave wanted to work on integration with Boost.Python so it 
>> got moved (or something like that). Anyway even though it might be more 
>> painful for Boost.Python we should consider moving the langbinding code 
>> into the sandbox project before any divergence occurs.
>> 
>> ...Dave, Daniel thoughts?
>
> Unless there's a really good reason to move it, I say we leave it in the
> main CVS. It's on a branch there, so I don't think it's causing any
> problems. 

I agree.

> If it's about being able to give out write access, I don't think
> it's a good reason. I would like any work done on the langbinding
> code to go through me or Dave anyway, preferably as patches on this
> list.

Well, I'm usually pretty liberal about giving out write access, but in
this case I think I'd like a chance to vett any patches, too.

> I think new language bindings should be developed separately. No
> need to have them on the same VC as langbinding.

Agree.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc.
Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course
Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005
Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information