Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

Mateusz Loskot
Administrator
On 10 November 2014 21:56, Adam Wulkiewicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>
>> Regarding extensions that are broken, they either should be fixed
>> if actively maintained and supported
>> or moved to separate repository
>> if not maintained, orphaned and unsupported.
>
>
> I agree. Actually I think that we should ASAP release them (or some of them)
> and have no more extensions.

+1

>> That said, I'd rather consider, either dedicated
>> repository github.com/boostorg/geometry-extensions
>> or
>> Boost.Geometry team organization github.com/boostorg-geometry
>> where such repositories can be maintained:
>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-orphaned
>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-proposed
>>
>
> Then if there were no extensions new features would exist in forks of people
> working on them. The code would be merged into the main repository only if
> it was finished. It'd then be maintained properly.

Yes, it would make sort of extensions incubator with simple yet clear
development cycle supported by GH pull requests, etc., and safely
outside the upstream repo.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Geometry mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/geometry
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

Barend
Hi,

Mateusz Loskot wrote On 10-11-2014 22:01:

> On 10 November 2014 21:56, Adam Wulkiewicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> Regarding extensions that are broken, they either should be fixed
>>> if actively maintained and supported
>>> or moved to separate repository
>>> if not maintained, orphaned and unsupported.
>>
>> I agree. Actually I think that we should ASAP release them (or some of them)
>> and have no more extensions.
> +1


Some are "soon" to be released (geographic strategies, projections) and
should stay there.

Same for some formats (WKB)

Some are quite often used by others (such as dissolve) and should stay
there, and indeed we can think about releasing them too.

Some others are not actively worked on (such as sphere).


>>> That said, I'd rather consider, either dedicated
>>> repository github.com/boostorg/geometry-extensions
>>> or
>>> Boost.Geometry team organization github.com/boostorg-geometry
>>> where such repositories can be maintained:
>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-orphaned
>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-proposed
>>>
>> Then if there were no extensions new features would exist in forks of people
>> working on them. The code would be merged into the main repository only if
>> it was finished. It'd then be maintained properly.
> Yes, it would make sort of extensions incubator with simple yet clear
> development cycle supported by GH pull requests, etc., and safely
> outside the upstream repo.
>

They are in extensions because they are not released. They are not in
the master, so they are not in the main repository.

With this location, we have automatic access to the regression matrix too.

Especially for the last reason, I don't think they should be moved. But
I agree that they should be made "green" and kept "green".

Regards, Barend




_______________________________________________
Geometry mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/geometry
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

Mateusz Loskot
Administrator
On 11 November 2014 00:01, Barend Gehrels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mateusz Loskot wrote On 10-11-2014 22:01:
>> On 10 November 2014 21:56, Adam Wulkiewicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regarding extensions that are broken, they either should be fixed
>>>> if actively maintained and supported
>>>> or moved to separate repository
>>>> if not maintained, orphaned and unsupported.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Actually I think that we should ASAP release them (or some of
>>> them) and have no more extensions.
>>
>> +1
>
>
> Some are "soon" to be released (geographic strategies, projections) and
> should stay there.
>
> Same for some formats (WKB)
>
> Some are quite often used by others (such as dissolve) and should stay
> there, and indeed we can think about releasing them too.
>
> Some others are not actively worked on (such as sphere).

Right, I now remember we had some discussion on that long ago.
Thanks for the reminder.

>>>> That said, I'd rather consider, either dedicated
>>>> repository github.com/boostorg/geometry-extensions
>>>> or
>>>> Boost.Geometry team organization github.com/boostorg-geometry
>>>> where such repositories can be maintained:
>>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-orphaned
>>>> github.com/boostorg-geometry/extensions-proposed
>>>>
>>> Then if there were no extensions new features would exist in forks of
>>> people
>>> working on them. The code would be merged into the main repository only
>>> if
>>> it was finished. It'd then be maintained properly.
>>
>> Yes, it would make sort of extensions incubator with simple yet clear
>> development cycle supported by GH pull requests, etc., and safely
>> outside the upstream repo.
>>
>
> They are in extensions because they are not released. They are not in the
> master, so they are not in the main repository.

Right, so we are good and there is no issue them causing the upstream
builds go RED.

> Especially for the last reason, I don't think they should be moved. But I
> agree that they should be made "green" and kept "green".

+1

Best regards,
--
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Geometry mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/geometry
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Extensions maintenance (was: Setting up Travis CI for Boost.Geometry)

Adam Wulkiewicz
In reply to this post by Barend
Hi,

Barend Gehrels wrote:

>
> Some are "soon" to be released (geographic strategies, projections)
> and should stay there.
>
> Same for some formats (WKB)
>
> Some are quite often used by others (such as dissolve) and should stay
> there, and indeed we can think about releasing them too.
>
> Some others are not actively worked on (such as sphere).
>

Actually I'm keeping the nsphere green, though indeed many algorithms
aren't implemented for this Geometry. However some time ago I
implemented a subset allowing to store nspheres in the rtree.

FYI, I'm planning to propose to use similar interface for
ellipsoid/sphere models we were talking about, to use core/radius as a
part of the concept. So this could be released as well.

>
> They are in extensions because they are not released. They are not in
> the master, so they are not in the main repository.
>
> With this location, we have automatic access to the regression matrix
> too.
>
> Especially for the last reason, I don't think they should be moved.
> But I agree that they should be made "green" and kept "green".

I agree, I took care of some of them already (nsphere). Most of them are
failing becasue recent changes in distance and robustness upgrades. But
dissolve() is failing since I can remember.

Regards,
Adam
_______________________________________________
Geometry mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/geometry
Loading...