Subject: Re: [boost] RE process (prospective from a retired FreeBSD committer)...
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-30 13:13:29
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Why would it be more work? I don't see why you think it would be more
> work. If the server choices are github, gitorious, sourceforge git
> repos, or your own publicly accessible server, who does it have to be
> more work for? And to that point, if pulling from multiple sources is
> just one command, why would that even be more work?
Aha. I thought there must be some misunderstanding here. Distributed repositories shouldn't mean that everyone has to keep track of dozens of servers.
Dean, or other Git advocates, can you also answer Volodya's other big concern?
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Suppose you have library X with 200 new changes. For next release, it is
> necessary to include one of those changes. How do you do that? With
> current release process, it's a single command (obviously, run by a
> single person).
>> And regardless, SVN has all the same issues w.r.t. picking individual
>> changes, doesn't it?
> No. When you merge a single revision from branch A to branch B, SVN
> records accurate information about this merge. When you do 'git cherry-pick',
> git does not record any information whatsoever and is fundementally unable
> to record it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk