Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 03:09:05
On 1 March 2012 00:44, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Wed Feb 29 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 February 2012 20:03, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> The way we plan to handle this with Ryppl is that you check in a testing
>>> specification with your project. The testing specification is just a
>>> text file, something like this JSON:
>> Ryppl comes with a few problems.
You should be telling us that. It's vapourware, it's conceptually
unproven, it's coupled to a controversial build system, it's a large
>> If the aim is to use git, then it's an expensive precondition.
> What is?
> If you mean Ryppl... Ryppl is not a precondition for the transition to
> Git. In some sense it's the other way around: a modularized Boost is a
> precondition for Boost's transition to Ryppl.
OK then, a modularised boost is an expensive precondition for moving
to git. Perhaps we should be discussing how to use an alternative
version control system while changing as little as possible. The other
stuff can come later.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk