on Mon May 06 2013, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"
Le 06/05/13 07:34, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
on Sun May 05 2013, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"
wrote: Le 04/05/13 21:08, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
Hi All,
After substantial work, including massive changes by me and Daniel Pfeifer to KDE's svn->Git conversion tool, we have captured every Boost SVN commit in a Git repository. You can view the results at http://github.com/boostorg http://bitbucket.org/boostorg
or you can pull from these repositories and view them in your local browser.
The conversion process is automated by http://jenkins.boost.org/job/Boost2Git/ using the tool at http://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git
The rules that describe how commits are distributed are in https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/blob/master/repositories.txt
To understand how to edit that file, please read https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/wiki/Editing-repositories.txt
Daniel and I are ready to accept your feedback on the results of modularization, and especially your pull requests containing edits to the ruleset. I will the steering committee to establish a formal review period, though.
Now that the it is ready for review, could you point where is the documentation to review? Sorry, what documentation?
What is ready for review then, the split on modules?
The way the modules are being split up, and the resulting Git histories.
Could I move the following from repository thread to core?
"boost/detail/atomic_redef_macros.hpp" : "include/boost/detail/atomic_redef_macros.hpp"; "boost/detail/atomic_undef_macros.hpp" : "include/boost/detail/atomic_undef_macros.hpp"; I added these files. They are used now by Boost.Thread, but it should be used by SmartPtr (See https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6842 and https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6843). Best, Vicente First, are you sure they don't belong in their own module? It might be a good idea to minimize the size of the core "blob." Where this kind of workarounds should go, Boost.Config?
Oh, I didn't realize they were just workarounds. Perhaps core would be best.
Second, sure, we can do that. Please try editing the ruleset yourself and submitting a pull request as described above. We need to find out if our instructions are adequate.
I'm not sure I know how this must be done :(
There's only one way to find out!
Anyway, I will try.
Thanks! -- Dave Abrahams