2013/1/11 Dave Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com
> on Fri Jan 11 2013, Daniel Pfeifer <purplekarrot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> We currently have a quite number of different repositories and
>> organizations: boost-lib@github, boostorg@github, ryppl@github,
>> boostorg@bitbucket. ryppl@bitbucket, ..., now also the clones of
>> Alexey, ...
>> I think we should clean that a little bit in order to avoid that work
>> gets lost.
> Yeah, no kidding!
>> 1. We need one organization to host the official repositories for
>> Boost.org. As long as CMake-ification is a work in progress, the
>> CMakeLists.txt file will not be checked in there.
's official org will probably have WIP repositories in it at
> some point, but OK, I vote for github.com/boostorg/
as the official
>> 2. We need an organization where we do the CMake-ification. There, we
>> fetch regularly from the official repos, but only make changes to
>> CMakelists.txt files.
> That's why we have bitbucket. http://bitbucket.org/boostorg
? Or, we
> could stick with Github everywhere and just make a parallel org like
I like boost-cmake. It makes the intent clear. Also, when there is the
same organization/library in two different places, one is usually
mirroring the other, which is not true in our case.
>> 3. We need an organization to host the repositories for our tools that
>> we develop.
> I prefer to used boostorg everywhere for Boost stuff. I know it seems
> like a trivial thing, but I think since we can't get "boost", boostorg
> is better and more memorable than boost-lib and is probably the best we
> can do.
Hm, these tools did not go through the peer review process that Boost
is famous for. It might be wrong to make them look like parts of
. I would stick to ryppl.
I could imagine that in the future there will be boost-incubator, a
place for libraries proposed for review, but not accepted yet.