Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

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.