Re: [boost] ryppl and cmake

Subject: Re: [boost] ryppl and cmake
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-28 16:02:19

At Tue, 25 May 2010 10:39:46 +0800,
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Actually, it turns out I was (sort of) wrong: one of the things you
can do with git that you can't with mercurial is important to making
this system efficient: getting a list of the branches and tags in a
remote repository.  With mercurial, you have to clone the whole danged
thing.  I'm still inclined to tell people who want to use other VCSes
to use adaptors like hg-git, git-svn, etc.

-- 
Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com