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 <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK then, a modularised boost is an expensive precondition for moving
>>> to git.
>> It isn't a precondition for moving to Git. Â We can move to Git and then
>> do the modularization step; it's not a problem. Â 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 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