[C++-sig] Re: CVS lagging : boost-consulting vs. sourceforge
dave at boost-consulting.com
Wed Oct 22 14:11:52 CEST 2003
"Nicolas LELONG" <nico_ml at mgdesign.org> writes:
> Hi everyone,
> for some time now, I've been using the boost-consulting CVS mirror for my
> updates, as it seemed to me that the sourceforge CVS was suffering of
> problems with anonymous accesses and was lagging.
> This morning, I wanted to get the revision of 'object_core.hpp' including
> the patch Dave created last week for the '
> problem with scope().attr(xxx)'.
> I'm quite annoyed to see that the boost-consulting CVS did not contain this
> patch (rev 1.37) while the sourceforge CVS contained the patch (rev 1.38) !
> Is there any general rule of thumb concerning the CVS to use these days ?!
SF has been having trouble publishing usable CVS tarballs for us to
mirror, so we're lagging at the moment. They're also fixing their
anonymous CVS, so at some point SF will become the definitively
better option. It may already have happened.
More information about the Cplusplus-sig