Confusion about many different Repositories/Organizations

[Daniel Pfeifer]

Hey,

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.

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.

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.

3. We need an organization to host the repositories for our tools that
we develop.

Did I forget something? Shall we choose the following organizations?

1. boost-lib@github
2. boostorg@bitbucket
3. ryppl@github

cheers, Daniel

[Dave Abrahams]

on Fri Jan 11 2013, Daniel Pfeifer <purplekarrot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> 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.

boost.org's official org will probably have WIP repositories in it at
some point, but OK, I vote for github.com/boostorg/ as the official
location.

> 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
"boost-cmake?"

> 3. We need an organization to host the repositories for our tools that
> we develop.
>
> Did I forget something? Shall we choose the following organizations?
>
> 1. boost-lib@github

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.

> 2. boostorg@bitbucket
> 3. ryppl@github

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing Software Development Training
http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

[Daniel Pfeifer]

2013/1/11 Dave Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com>:

>
> on Fri Jan 11 2013, Daniel Pfeifer <purplekarrot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> 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.
>
> boost.org's official org will probably have WIP repositories in it at
> some point, but OK, I vote for github.com/boostorg/ as the official
> location.

Great.

>> 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
> "boost-cmake?"

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
boost.org. 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.

[Dave Abrahams]

OK, done :-)

>>> 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
> boost.org. I would stick to ryppl.

I agree. I'm moving them there.

> I could imagine that in the future there will be boost-incubator, a
> place for libraries proposed for review, but not accepted yet.

I'm not sure we need an Org for that one, but we can cross that bridge
when we come to it.

[Dave Abrahams]

So do we just unceremoniously kill the obsolete orgs?

[Beman Dawes]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Dave Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com> wrote:
>
> So do we just unceremoniously kill the obsolete orgs?

Why not? They will just cause confusion.

Did all files migrate to one place or another?

--Beman

[Dave Abrahams]

I *think* so.

[Dave Abrahams]

I guess you should move them to http://github.com/boost-cmake, right,
Daniel?

on Tue Jan 15 2013, Alexey Kutumov <alexey.kutumov-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> I've made several commits to my forked repos, how to deal with them?
>
> вторник, 15 января 2013 г., 22:50:02 UTC+7 пользователь Dave Abrahams
> написал:

[Daniel Pfeifer]

>> I've made several commits to my forked repos, how to deal with them?
>>

> I guess you should move them to http://github.com/boost-cmake, right,
> Daniel?
>

Alexey, please feel free to push all your work to
http://github.com/boost-cmake. This is the place where the
CMake-ification should continue.

Thanks!

[Alexey Kutumov]

I forked all boost libraries (100+ repositories), do we need all these repos in boost-cmake org? Or maybe there is another way to push all my work?

понедельник, 21 января 2013 г., 17:14:24 UTC+7 пользователь Daniel Pfeifer написал:

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Jan 23 2013, Alexey Kutumov <alexey.kutumov-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> I forked all boost libraries (100+ repositories), do we need all
> these repos in boost-cmake org? Or maybe there is another way to push
> all my work?

Hi Alexey,

Take a look at
https://github.com/ryppl/ryppl/blob/develop/scripts/populate-github-boostorg.py

I think you could easily adapt this script to fork all of your repos
over to the boost-cmake org.

[Alexey Kutumov]

I successfully pushed all my work to github/boost-cmake, so bitbucket/ryppl is no longer needed for me.

понедельник, 21 января 2013 г., 17:14:24 UTC+7 пользователь Daniel Pfeifer написал:

>> I've made several commits to my forked repos, how to deal with them?

[Beman Dawes]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Dave Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com> wrote:
>
> on Fri Jan 11 2013, Daniel Pfeifer <purplekarrot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2013/1/11 Dave Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com>:
>>>
>>> on Fri Jan 11 2013, Daniel Pfeifer <purplekarrot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> boost.org's official org will probably have WIP repositories in it at
>>> some point, but OK, I vote for github.com/boostorg/ as the official
>>> location.
>>
>> Great.

So is github.com/boostorg the official site?

Should I change all the documentation? Make an announcement on the
main mailing list?

Can github.com/boost-lib be changed to indicate that it is replace by
github.com/boostorg? Or removed entirely?

--Beman

[Beman Dawes]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Beman Dawes <bda...@acm.org> wrote:
...

> So is github.com/boostorg the official site?

Apparently the answer is "yes":-)

> Should I change all the documentation?

Will do.

> Make an announcement on the main [boost] mailing list?

Will do.

> Can github.com/boost-lib be changed to indicate that it is replace by
> github.com/boostorg?

Someone has now done that. Thanks!

--Beman

[Dave Abrahams]

I think we should either wipe out the boost-lib github org completely,
or delete all of its repositories. Does anyone want to prevent me from
destroying the org?

--
Dave Abrahams

[Daniel Pfeifer]

> I think we should either wipe out the boost-lib github org completely,
> or delete all of its repositories. Does anyone want to prevent me from
> destroying the org?

Go ahead!

One important note: The cmake-ification work is based on these repositories.
This is not a problem, we just need to keep that in mind when we want
to rebase the cmake-ification to the new repositories.

[Dave Abrahams]

I don't understand the implications of these facts. Are you merely
saying that we'll want to import the CMakeLists.txt files from
http://github.com/boost-cmake/ while not allowing history on the other
files in that repo to affect anything?

--
Dave Abrahams