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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 16:36:54

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM, John Wiegley <johnw_at_[hidden]> 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.

I'm with you up to this point.

>  3. Switch to CMake as the build process for these submodules.

That's a whole different topic.

There is something deeply flawed about the modularization design if it
requires a switch to CMake. Indeed, one of the reasons I want to try
the modularization design on one of my libraries is to verify it is
compatible with both our current build system and build systems that
have nothing to do with either Boost.Build/bjam or CMake.

--Beman