Re: [boost] 1.35 release approach (was [1.34.0] Deadline)

From: Dave Steffen (dgsteffen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-01 11:20:41

Jeff Garland writes:
[...]

 > Now, I realize that we have a plan to switch to subversion and have
 > a new process that has been developed by Beman, etc. But it's my
 > view that we should pursue a CVS based approach because it requires
 > zero time to implement.  In the meantime the subversion conversion
 > can proceed in parallel.  When everything is 100% ready to go we
 > switch.

 </delurk>

 A minor point in this discussion, but:  

 Switching to SVN is _not_ going to go completely smoothly, it _will_
 take some resources and time, it _will_ annoy people for a while; see
 for example the experience the GCC developers had during their
 switch.

 On the other hand, we switched from CVS to SubVersion several years
 ago; our experience was not unlike the GCC developers (although the
 whole thing took less time, we're a small company).  And we're very,
 very happy we did so.  

 In our experience, it's like pulling off a band-aid; it's unpleasant,
 it's inevitable, so it's best to get it done as quickly as possible.
 My advice would be to A) accept that switching will take some time
 and trouble and B) to get it done as soon and as quickly as possible.

 </lurk>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Steffen, Ph.D.       Fools ignore complexity.
Software Engineer IV      Pragmatists suffer it.
Numerica Corporation      Some can avoid it.
ph [phone] x227    Geniuses remove it.
dgsteffen_at_[hidden]            -- Alan Perlis