Re: [boost] ryppl and cmake

Subject: Re: [boost] ryppl and cmake
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-24 22:39:46

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Sankel <camior_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> At Mon, 24 May 2010 19:47:00 +0200,
>> joel falcou wrote:
>> > It seems counterproductive to be tied to git for the distribution part.
>>
>>  At the risk of alienating some people… I believe Git is going to
>> Â  Â win the DVCS wars.
>
>
> At the risk of alienating myself, I think there is a faulty assumption here.
> I see no reason to believe that there is going to be a clear cut single
> "winner" with DVCS. The systems clearly differentiate themselves. Quality of
> windows OS support, performance, and learning curve are just a few examples.
> If the future turns out as I expect, choice of DVCS is going to be similar
> to a choice of vim or emacs - mac or windows.
>

True, but then even in the choices available, we're going to have to
start somewhere. And I think the largest reach for the most part would
be to support git and then if someone does feel strongly about it,
then make it work for mercurial, bazaar, subversion, or <insert your
favorite version control system here>. Like Dave has already pointed
out, Pip already abstracts this plugin subsystem out anyway, so it's
just a matter of writing the glue that Pip can use to understand other
VCSes -- I don't see how choosing to support git first or thinking
that it will win over the others is a bad thing though.

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com