Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 08:06:50
on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Â 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
> disruptive change.
Yes, all of these things are true. I'm not sure why I should be telling
you that, though. I only asked because I wanted to know to what you
>>> 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. Â 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.
It isn't a precondition for moving to Git. We can move to Git and then
do the modularization step; it's not a problem. However, it does mean
> 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.
Sure, by all means. I think you misunderstood my posting for some sort
of advocacy. We've done some thinking about these problems and I
thought the conversation could benefit from that thinking; that's all.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk