Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 11:07:36

on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <> wrote:

> On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <> wrote:
>>> 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.

And the process of making that possible is already underway:

Actually, I think the switch is mostly just awaiting a decision from
Beman and any necessary associated discussion here on this list.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at