Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?

Subject: Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-15 23:45:38

on Mon Jul 15 2013, "Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow-AT-hetp.u-net.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Abrahams
>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 4:46 PM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?
>
>> 
>> 
>> on Wed Jun 26 2013, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 23/06/13 22:59, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> >> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> >>> I'm trying to get a handle on the current state of the various boost
>> >>> migrations which have been underway.
>> >>>
>> >>> a) migration to GIT
>> >
>> >>> b) migration to CMake
>> >>> c) status of rypll
>> >>>
>> >>> when I try to track this down I find many dead links, repeated
>> >>> information. I also don't find some blogs I used to be able to find
>> >>> on these subjects.
>> >>> Anyone up to provide an current status snapshot?
>> >>>
>> >>> Robert Ramey
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> For example
>> >>
>> >> a) https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
>> >> has a bunch of dead links
>> >> b) what used to be www.rypll.org now seems to be
>> >> https://github.com/ryppl/ryppl
>> >> c) this looks like cmake for boost https://github.com/boost-cmake
>> >> c) https://bitbucket.org/boostorg looks to contain the same information or ?
>> >>
>> >> In general, very, very confusing
>> >
>> > AFAIK migration to git (with modularized repositories) is ongoing,
>> > validation of all contributors has been requested.
>> > The other projects are on hold until the migration to git is done.
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> * FWIW, http://ryppl.org (only one "l") is still live.
>> 
>> * http://bitbucket.org/boostorg contains the same information as
>>   http://github.com/boostorg, **as we originally announced**, because it
>>   has a potentially more-useful history browser that some might prefer
>>   using to review the modularization.  Also someone recently checked
>>   some enormous files into the SVN sandbox, which prevents us from
>>   pushing the sandbox module to github.
>
> This all sounds very promising but can I ask a further question.
>
> Has anyone given any thought to how Boost documentation will work in GIT?

*Any* thought?  Of course!

> I've recently converted some documentation 

Converted it to what?

> and though the conversion itself was quite painless, the links to
> icons, examples, tests, other Boost library documentation and files
> caused me some trouble, and would appear likely to be disrupted by
> GITerization, potentially causing some serious work, especially for
> big libraries (no prizes for guessing which I particularly have in
> mind ;).

Yes, we might want to create a repository for common resources that
individual libraries can include as a submodule.  But I do expect paths
to need adjustment.

> However, don't let me distract from the major task of getting the code
> and history converted.
>
> I'm just raising a flag that this might be a significant issue for the
> future.

Maybe I'm missing something, but nothing you're describing sounds like
it could possibly be a significant issue compared to the general
problem of Git conversion and modularization.

-- 
Dave Abrahams