Re: [boost] [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-03 17:31:06

John Wiegley wrote:

> "Belcourt, K. Noel" <kbelco_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> I'd much prefer to leave the repo structure unchanged and migrate directly
>> into git "as is".  Restructure the repo into submodules after we've made the
>> transition to git.  It will be much easier to restructure the repo with
>> everything already in git.  There's two upsides, we lose no commit history
>> and it only perturbs one aspect at a time (first give people chance to use
>> same repo layout using new tool, followed by a restructure of the repo into
>> submodules using the new tool).  I worry about perturbing too many variables
>> at once.
> 
> A few of us have been discussing this at length off-list.  There are arguments
> on both sides, so I can't say which is truly best except I think we may prefer
> to get all this disruption over in one big step:
> 
>  1. Move to Git, preserving monolithic history in a "boost-history" repo.
>  2. Separate the projects into submodules governed by a "boost" super-project.
>  3. Switch to CMake as the build process for these submodules.

Oh fun. So, "a few of us", who are not really identified and whose level
of participation in Boost development is therefore unknown, are apparently 
are trying to force various changes are result of off-list discussion? 

The history of this discussion seem to go like this:
- Some folks proposed switch to git, and found some opposition, and no 
consensus was reached. 
- Beman suggests to play with git, using one library. That seems OK.
- Suddenly, folks are starting to discuss various details as if switch
to git is already decided.
- Then, folks start to discuss modularization as if it's already planned,
despite there been different opinions whether it's needed, and how
exactly it's needed.
- Then, obviously my favourite, it's proposed to switch to CMake in
the same big bang, despite the fact that no discussion about that
ever happened.

It looks like either:
- there's some hidden play going on
- somebody is trying to just sneak his changes without discussion, either
by just doing them, or by talking about them as if they are certain
until everybody starts to believe that.

What's going on?

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
Mentor Graphics
[phone]