Re: [boost] [Git] Boost Filesystem now has public GitHub repository

Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Boost Filesystem now has public GitHub repository
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-14 08:35:43

On 2/14/2011 5:59 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>> On 2/13/2011 10:15 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>
>>> The point of this public repo is to gain actual use experience with
>>> Git and with a modularized Boost library. Modularization followed the
>>> pattern ryppl is proposing - the top level directory is the same as
>>> the current SVN list/filesystem, with the addition an "include"
>>> directory with a "boost" sub-directory containing the current SVN
>>> boost/filesystem stuff. None of the existing filesystem content was
>>> changed.
>>
>> I'm wondering if to make a more accurate comparison of the git experience
>> vs. svn, it would be worthwhile to experiment with maintaining a modularized
>> Boost Library directly in subversion.
>
> That might be interesting, but in SVN I don't know how to do the
> equivalent of Git local commits with occasional pushes to a public
> remote. I've been using that development model on other projects and
> have come to like it so much I've lost interest in SVN.

You create a branch where you put the module, i.e. where you do all your 
work. When you want to publish, you merge/push to a common tree (or to 
another branch of the same marked as "release", or "trunk", etc.). It's 
the same development model, except it's all done in SVN.

[...]
> Again, that's really a different experiment. Its basically simulating
> a distributed development environment with svn. The equivalent of "git
> push" is simulated with merge scripts. But I'm just not interested in
> trying to hang onto svn. I've come to like git much better. It gets in
> my way less often than svn.

I thought the part of the experiment was to compare against SVN? And 
obviously comparing against our current use of SVN would be an unfair 
comparison. Since if there's a way to use the current tools in the same 
way as Git would that not be a reasonable choice to move to? I.e. would 
it not be a reasonable choice to move to using SVN with modular libraries?

I guess I've lost what the point of experimentation is without looking 
at all the immediate alternatives :-\

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail