From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 11:25:11
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Aug 03 2007, David Abrahams <dave-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
>>> Frankly, I think this whole approach of "fixing the process" is
>>> wrongheaded. We're in this mess because our *tools* are broken, not
>>> our *process*. Lots of other projects, many larger than Boost, work
>>> perfectly well with the same or similar processes because their tools
>>> work better.
>> I'm 100% convinced the tools are broken. I'm only about 50% convinced
>> that the process isn't (or is, if you prefer) broken.
> And let me add, on that basis I will spend any energy I have on fixing
> tools and resist any major changes of process until we have experience
> with the fixed tools. Changes lead to churn and we should minimize
To me focusing on the tools is a temptation that gets nourished by the
fact that tools are more tangible than processes. However, the distinction
often is blurry. As you know, there have been endless discussions about whether
to use CVS, SVN, GIT, or whatever, and bjam, cmake, scons, etc.
It is fun to look at alternatives to better grasp the limitations of the tools
currently in use. But constantly looking for what next generation of tools to
replace the current ones with, to me, looks like a broken process, too.
(To paraphrase: Not spending enough time in thinking about focus, scope, and
strategy is a problem in many projects I have seen, and in all such cases people
were keen on fixing the tools.)
That's why I'm suspicious that 'fixing the tools' alone will change much.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk