Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 10:22:53
On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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
> were referring.
Sorry, having re-read that, it was too aggressive, I take it back. I
thought these things were well established, which is why I didn't
mention them in the first place.
>> 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
> two transitions.
Which can be a good thing. Breaking a process down into smaller stages
can make it easier. It seems to me that we've discussed git several
times, and it's always part of a grand scheme. If git is considered
desirable enough, then it might be best to just switch to it, keeping
everything else the same.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk