Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-02 06:18:44
Daniel James 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. 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 by "part of a grand scheme" you mean CMake, modularization or the
Ryppl model in its entirety, I agree; but if you mean gitflow
branching or the crude test image model that emerged from our
discussion with Thomas Heller, I don't. I think both of the latter
two ideas would involve only small, gradual changes which are best
implemented (shortly) after the conversion to git is made. These are
just a matter of "adapting to new opportunities".
In fact, it seems that https://github.com/ryppl/boost-svn almost
conforms to the gitflow branching model already.
> 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